From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #79 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 11 2000 Volume 01 : Number 079 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 100 19:46:31 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > On 10-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > > CORE has taken *no* registrations. Period. Zilch. Nada. The big > > Goose egg. Zero. None. > > Semantics Kent. As you and others have pointed out several times, CORE IS ITS > REGISTRARS. So the registrars make up CORE and they have accepted > registrations. > > You can't have it both ways, depending on what is convienant at the moment. There are many CORE registars that have gone to great lengths to NOT accept preregistrations or create queues and indicate that so far there is no definite signal on when or if any new TLDs will be added to the roots. By your reasoning, CORE is morally pure because of the great lengths that these registrars (that also make up CORE) have taken to indicate this. Of course, it is neither one nor the other. Creating queues and accepting preregistrations is an activity completely outside the scope and independent of any agreement with CORE. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 17:51:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > There are many CORE registars that have gone to great lengths to NOT accept > preregistrations or create queues and indicate that so far there is no > definite signal on when or if any new TLDs will be added to the roots. By > your reasoning, CORE is morally pure because of the great lengths that these > registrars (that also make up CORE) have taken to indicate this. Of course, > it is neither one nor the other. Creating queues and accepting > preregistrations is an activity completely outside the scope and independent > of any agreement with CORE. Then those who refuse to flush out their queues should be prohibited from participation in the roll out. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE48ncC8zLmV94Pz+IRAtk4AJ9lcvTMtTmphD+IXXalaK2K3fKzsACglsZU CHrLbJ7uu/sCFIJxpZIQY8w= =Wzam - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 18:26:16 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 03:06:07PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: > > On 10-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > > CORE has taken *no* registrations. Period. Zilch. Nada. The big > > Goose egg. Zero. None. > > Semantics Kent. Yes, you are playing silly semantic games. > As you and others have pointed out several times, CORE IS ITS > REGISTRARS. No -- I haven't pointed that out, and no one with any connection to legal reality has pointed that out, either. CORE is a non profit swiss association, distinct from its members. A legal contract with CORE is not a contract with any of its members. This is fact. CORE is distinct from its members, legally and actually. This is fact. It is simple and obvious fact. It wouldn't even occur to me to say otherwise, except maybe as some poetic hyperbole. > So the registrars make up CORE and they have accepted > registrations. A CORE member could sell shares in the Brooklyn Bridge. That doesn't mean that CORE sold the shares. CORE members are distinct businesses from CORE. A CORE member can sign a contract for janitorial services; that doesn't mean CORE is involved in the contract. Some of the CORE members are huge corporations (eg Deutsche Telecom) -- that doesn't mean that CORE controls the actions of those corporations -- the idea is ludicrious. CORE has not accepted any money from anyone for registration services in the IAHC TLDs. It does not provide public DNS services for the IAHC TLDs. It does not provide whois service for those TLDs. It does not provide alternate root service for those TLDs. It has not charged any money for any of these things it is not providing. Since it hasn't sold ANYTHING, it obviously is not "pre-selling" registrations. Furthermore, the queues that some of the CORE registrars may have are doodoo when it comes registration in an ICANN approved TLD. They convey no guarantee whatsoever of registration in a real TLD; they carry no presumption of priority over the registrations of any other registrar; they have no more weight than a list that you or I might have that we could submit to some other registrar. Perhaps CORE, or some of the registrars, would like things to be different, but it aint gonna happen. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 07:21:56 -0400 From: Craig Simon Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs This is my chance to chime in with an old idea of mine from the first days of WG-C. Almost no one liked it, and, as Esther Dyson said about ICANN's bylaws, if no one likes them, they must be a good compromise... The goal of my idea was to promote Internet unity and reduce pressures for alternate roots, by adding popular new gTLDs while ensuring that alternate root registrants who thought they were paying to get into the real Internet are not penalized or antagonized. The gist of it was that all of IOD's .web registrants should be grandfathered in to the new .web, no matter who runs the registry (i favored a non-profit model). The same would be true of any other non-IANA TLD, including Adam Todd's, Paul Garrin's, etc.. The offer to IOD was a favorable opportunity to become an ICANN registrar for all gTLDs, with a few months of time granted to operate as the exclusive registrar for .web. And the same would go for the others. Read all about it at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/wgc1plan.html Chris Ambler and Kent Crispin both despised this idea, so it must be great. My thinking is exactly counter to thrust of this thread. I expect this effort is a waste of time, as it was before. Also, I think it's correct to say that CORE has taken no registrations, since the ill-fated plans for the round robin never took place. So would be no CORE registrants to grandfather in. Craig Simon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:30:14 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles Today's comments on the principles raise two issues. 1. Rod notes his concern that the requirement that each TLD string have "meaning" could be understood to preclude open TLDs. We all, I think, agree that the principles *shouldn't* be read to preclude open TLDs. Philip explained back on Feb. 16 that he didn't see the principles as precluding "a ‘true generic' [that] purports to stand for that and only that." He noted on Feb. 22 that in his mind .zzz would be an acceptable TLD; the corresponding meaning might be "‘.zzz just stands for a very memorable domain name.'" It seems to me that Rod has a point, though: a naive reader, unfamiliar with the full history of our discussions, might not read the word "meaning" so broadly — most of us would say that "zzz" is meaningless at the outset, although it might acquire meaning through branding. Perhaps it would be more clear to reword the first principle to read: "1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English." 2. Patrick raises the question whether differentiation, in the sense that each TLD operates in a different market segment, is an effective means of providing competition at all. This is a basic issue, but I think the principles may side-step it. The principles' language re: differentiation requires that "TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string . . . ." I've never considered this a model of unambiguous phrasing, but my guess is that differentiation "by the string" is not necessarily the same thing as differentiation by market segment in any event. I've been saying that we needed to get the text of the principles final by tonight, so that we could have one week for a formal consensus call, but I really want to have the chance for some further feedback before setting these in stone. So, please -- get me any further comments by mid-morning EST tomorrow (Tues). (This gives people in Europe nearly all day tomorrow to respond. It gives people on the US West Coast essentially no time tomorrow, but hey — it's only suppertime on the West Coast now, so you folks have all evening.) That knocks the consensus call down to six days, which I hate, but we'll have to make the best of it. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:28:51 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 09:28 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 12:41 AM 4/7/00 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote: >>The so called IAHC 7 was reviewed by those who were active at that time in >>the process. Many of today's participants will not recognize IAHC because it >In any event, Kent made a factual observation that that list is the only >one to have received wide-spread review. As a statement of fact, the >statement is correct. The result of the "wide-spread review" was a number of lawsuits (IOD, PGP Media, etc.), and the intervention of the USG. Lawsuits have this annoying habit of red flagging those situations without community consensus, and was one of the reasons the USG/DoC intervened. The USG declared the IAHC/gTLD-MoU proposal as invalid and ICANN was created to continue the work of IANA (let's not forget the facts, eh?). >Or do you know of another list that has received anything close to an >equivalent review? While the current community involvement is larger than >a couple of years ago, the review the name list received, back then, was >nonetheless quite extensive and did result in change. Yes. Jon Postel's original IANA application list has never been challenged after 4 years of peer review. Just ignored. It is the only list that meets the NSF submission requirements (see below). http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html >Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly >changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven >names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) Absolutely. The 7 IAHC TLDs were never been submitted to IANA via RFC1591 process. Jon Postel confirmed this in person just before he died. How important is this? Read the following letter from NSF: 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." >Perhaps I have misunderstood your note, and you merely were concerned that >the current community needs to be familiar with the list. In that case it >would have helped to include a URL to it. Let's remedy that failing now: > >The original list is cited in the Excecutive Summary of : > > Don't forget the USG officially invalidated this "recommendation". >After extensive public review, there was clear consensus to change .store >to .shop. Interestingly, the latter was deemed to have a more >"international" flavor, since the word is used in more than one language. > >Hence, the resulting list of gTLDs is: > > .firm for businesses, or firms > .shop for businesses offering goods to purchase > .web for entities emphasizing activities related > to the WWW In dispute (see IANA list). > .arts for entities emphasizing cultural and > entertainment activities In dispute (Skyscape? - anyone have the reference?). > .rec for entities emphasizing > recreation/entertainment activities > .info for entities providing information services > .nom for those wishing individual or personal > nomenclature The remainder TLDs are carried in several of the alternative root server systems, and you can probably garner consensus for those 5 out of the 7 TLDs if you decide to play nice with the other children. But I'd be very concerned about the liability of the pre-sales by the CORE registrars. Does ICANN have the liability coverage for this? The bottom line is that the IAHC proposal was reviewed and rejected by arms longer than both Kent and Dave. Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:51:21 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: TLD Charters (was Re: [wg-c] S/K principles) At 08:41 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > Charter and open > > This is not a black and white choice. Even dot com has some defining > > characteristics. > >Actually, it is much closer to black and white than you imply. >"Charter" in context usually means "*enforced* criteria for restriction >of registrations to particular registrants." A charter defines the purpose and scope of the TLD. The charter is the document that defines how it is delegated (shared/exclusive), who it is delegated to (registry/registrars), and any specific information regarding the purpose and use of a TLD. *ALL* TLDs should have a charter. The following is from my submission to both the Postel draft and IAHC proceedings: http://www.iahc.org/contrib/draft-iahc-higgs-tld-cat-03.txt 3.3. TLD Charters Each new TLD must be created with an identifiable purpose. A written charter will identify and explain the function and purpose of each TLD. In the case of the Specialized and Corporate TLD classes (described below), the corporation or organization acting as the registry will be responsible for creating the TLD's charter. This will be part of the TLD application process. Guidelines for charter creation will be made publically available by IANA. The following items must be identified in the charter: 3.2.1 Registration procedure, documenting all steps 3.2.2 Service guarantees required in the operation of that TLD 3.2.3 Error resolution policy (including any refund policy) 3.2.4 Dispute policy (including any refund policy) 3.2.5 Procedure for dealing with domain name and trademark conflicts. 3.4. Registry's Failure To Enforce Charter In processing registrations, each registry must observe the procedures laid out in the charter for each TLD. Should a delegated registry be unable or unwilling to enforce a TLD charter, then at the IDNB's discretion, the authority to accept or process registrations for that TLD would be removed, and the TLD would be assigned to another registry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:51:21 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: TLD Charters (was Re: [wg-c] S/K principles) At 08:41 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 05:13:22PM +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote: > > Charter and open > > This is not a black and white choice. Even dot com has some defining > > characteristics. > >Actually, it is much closer to black and white than you imply. >"Charter" in context usually means "*enforced* criteria for restriction >of registrations to particular registrants." A charter defines the purpose and scope of the TLD. The charter is the document that defines how it is delegated (shared/exclusive), who it is delegated to (registry/registrars), and any specific information regarding the purpose and use of a TLD. *ALL* TLDs should have a charter. The following is from my submission to both the Postel draft and IAHC proceedings: http://www.iahc.org/contrib/draft-iahc-higgs-tld-cat-03.txt 3.3. TLD Charters Each new TLD must be created with an identifiable purpose. A written charter will identify and explain the function and purpose of each TLD. In the case of the Specialized and Corporate TLD classes (described below), the corporation or organization acting as the registry will be responsible for creating the TLD's charter. This will be part of the TLD application process. Guidelines for charter creation will be made publically available by IANA. The following items must be identified in the charter: 3.2.1 Registration procedure, documenting all steps 3.2.2 Service guarantees required in the operation of that TLD 3.2.3 Error resolution policy (including any refund policy) 3.2.4 Dispute policy (including any refund policy) 3.2.5 Procedure for dealing with domain name and trademark conflicts. 3.4. Registry's Failure To Enforce Charter In processing registrations, each registry must observe the procedures laid out in the charter for each TLD. Should a delegated registry be unable or unwilling to enforce a TLD charter, then at the IDNB's discretion, the authority to accept or process registrations for that TLD would be removed, and the TLD would be assigned to another registry. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:01:20 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 11:37 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 11:10:29AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 10:52 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > > > I propose that we allow no pre-sold TLDs to become part of the > > >testbed, and I further propose that we re-evaluate this position once > > >the testbed period has ended. > > > > Are you then, also, going to propose regulating the ways that registrars > > maintain their financial records? The temperature of their offices? > > > > One of the more difficult aspects to this activity is being very careful > > and consistent about what is NECESSARY for ICANN and registries to deal > > with, and what is not. > > > > Within the limits of concern about such things as mis-representations of > > the registry, the business dealings between a registrar and its customers > > are not reasonably the concern of the registry or ICANN. > >I'm not saying this is an easy proposal to enforce. But I stand by >the assertion that introducing pre-sold TLDs to the authoritative roots >under the pretense of expanding namespace is disingenuous because it >will not introduce additional namespace, it will simply introduce >already occupied namespace. Which will happen anyway after a day or so. Or do you want the name space to remain permanently empty? Please remember the existing guidelines for domain name applications. > > >The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the > > >roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their > > >systems to handle multiple independent roots. They should not have > > >been pre-sold as though they were going to be added to the roots > > >any day now. However, if I recall the ad copy, that's how CORE was > > >pushing them. > > > > Where and when did "CORE" push them, as opposed to some registrars that > > belonged to CORE? > > > > Please be careful to distinguish between activities of the association and > > independent actions by association members. > >Sorry. Yes, this was pushed by the CORE registrars as individual entities >and not by CORE itself. Sorry for any confusion. Don't be. You were right the first time. The POC made a collective policy decision to accept pre-sold domain names. This was not an action limited to individual registrars, but an action sanctioned by the POC: http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4 "There have been some suggestions that POC ban registrars from taking "pre-registrations". After carefully considering this, POC decided not to ban pre-registrations as it could not prevent other third parties (non-CORE members) from queuing registrations and submitting them through a CORE registrar. And indeed, there are many companies doing exactly this." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 No Craig, this unfairly penalizes the rest of the potential domain registrants who refused to deal with "alternative" self started domain registries. On 10-Apr-2000 Craig Simon wrote: > This is my chance to chime in with an old idea of mine from the first days of > WG-C. Almost no one liked it, and, as Esther Dyson said about ICANN's bylaws, > if > no one likes them, they must be a good compromise... > > The goal of my idea was to promote Internet unity and reduce pressures for > alternate roots, by adding popular new gTLDs while ensuring that alternate > root > registrants who thought they were paying to get into the real Internet are > not > penalized or antagonized. > > The gist of it was that all of IOD's .web registrants should be grandfathered > in > to the new .web, no matter who runs the registry (i favored a non-profit > model). > The same would be true of any other non-IANA TLD, including Adam Todd's, Paul > Garrin's, etc.. The offer to IOD was a favorable opportunity to become an > ICANN > registrar for all gTLDs, with a few months of time granted to operate as the > exclusive registrar for .web. And the same would go for the others. > > Read all about it at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/wgc1plan.html > > Chris Ambler and Kent Crispin both despised this idea, so it must be great. > My > thinking is exactly counter to thrust of this thread. I expect this effort is > a > waste of time, as it was before. > > Also, I think it's correct to say that CORE has taken no registrations, since > the ill-fated plans for the round robin never took place. So would be no CORE > registrants to grandfather in. > > Craig Simon - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE48pX88zLmV94Pz+IRAnQIAJ4mzZC31xD6zTVdorKbBAd9SGSirgCfbJ0P 1T/BO+u6AhBhJHCj1GNvMDo= =dLP4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:20:42 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles Jon, When I raised the issue Philip claimed competition with .com was simply not possible. Mind, his offer of proof was assertion. If he's turned on the issue, fine, if he hasn't ... that's a problem for people who find some sense of accomplishment or comfort in S/K, at least for those who are so inclined and attempting to find some mechanism to competition with the current monopoly. Next I suggest you do Philip the considerable kindness of pushing him out the closest available window. Your final attempt at the restatement of S/K came close to being comprehensible, and Philip's sojourn away has not improved his comprehensibility or given him the modest wisdom to be grateful for the assistence you've provided. If he hadn't popped back like a discarded bait frog from the dark pond of WG-B, I'd have applied your last rendition of S/K to NAA and explained how close to something useful I thought you'd got. However, he's running the S/K show, so it would only annoy him and confuse everyone to address "W/K". I'm sorry there is so little time, and so much of it has been spent so very badly, but seriously, as an opponent of S/K, the best version of it I've yet seen was _not_ written by Philip. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:32:06 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles I agree with Patrick...particularly with regard to the impact that S/K Principle #1 could have on competition. Meaning adds context for the user, but this will occur without an ICANN mandate or barrier, if market forces so require. If users want generic strings with amorphous meaning (which I doubt that they actually do), let them clearly have at them. Rod Dixon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Patrick Greenwell > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 4:37 PM > To: Philip Sheppard > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg > Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles > > > I submit that such a requirement would have at least three gravely adverse > effects on both registries and consumers: > > a) It would, contrary to your stated intent, force registries to run > chartered TLDs in order to maintain disparity from all other > registries. > > b) It would create fiefdoms where single registries would be responsible > for all registrations pertaining to a specific charter. > > c) Potential new registries would be forced to choose among decreasingly > attractive TLDs as monopoly(in their given purpose) chartered TLDs > came into being. > > Robust competition is created when entities offering the same or > largely similar goods/services enter a market, not by allowing a single > entity to control all goods/services in a specific market as this clause > would do w/r/t domain names. It's bad for the registries and it is bad for > consumers. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:46:21 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles Jon, I think the revision works well. Rod > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Jonathan Weinberg > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:30 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles > > > Today's comments on the principles raise two issues. > > 1. Rod notes his concern that the requirement that each TLD > string have > "meaning" could be understood to preclude open TLDs. We all, I think, > agree that the principles *shouldn't* be read to preclude open TLDs. > Philip explained back on Feb. 16 that he didn't see the principles as > precluding "a ‘true generic' [that] purports to stand for that and only > that." He noted on Feb. 22 that in his mind .zzz would be an acceptable > TLD; the corresponding meaning might be "‘.zzz just stands for a very > memorable domain name.'" > > It seems to me that Rod has a point, though: a naive > reader, unfamiliar > with the full history of our discussions, might not read the word > "meaning" > so broadly — most of us would say that "zzz" is meaningless at the outset, > although it might acquire meaning through branding. Perhaps it would be > more clear to reword the first principle to read: > > "1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the > significance of > the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new > TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The > application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its > primary semantic meaning in a language other than English." > > 2. Patrick raises the question whether differentiation, in > the sense that > each TLD operates in a different market segment, is an effective means of > providing competition at all. This is a basic issue, but I think the > principles may side-step it. The principles' language re: differentiation > requires that "TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the > string . . . ." > I've never considered this a model of unambiguous phrasing, but my guess > is that differentiation "by the string" is not necessarily the same thing > as differentiation by market segment in any event. > > I've been saying that we needed to get the text of the > principles final by > tonight, so that we could have one week for a formal consensus call, but I > really want to have the chance for some further feedback before setting > these in stone. So, please -- get me any further comments by mid-morning > EST tomorrow (Tues). (This gives people in Europe nearly all day tomorrow > to respond. It gives people on the US West Coast essentially no time > tomorrow, but hey — it's only suppertime on the West Coast now, so you > folks have all evening.) That knocks the consensus call down to six days, > which I hate, but we'll have to make the best of it. > > Jon > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:54:46 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles I agree with Eric's point here. It should be noted that if the WG-C adopts these principles, we adopt them on our terms, not the original authors. Of course, their efforts are appreciated. Rod > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Eric > Brunner > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:21 PM > To: Jonathan Weinberg > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; brunner@world.std.com > Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles > > > Jon, > > When I raised the issue Philip claimed competition with .com was simply > not possible. Mind, his offer of proof was assertion. If he's turned on > the issue, fine, if he hasn't ... that's a problem for people who find > some sense of accomplishment or comfort in S/K, at least for those who > are so inclined and attempting to find some mechanism to competition with > the current monopoly. > > Next I suggest you do Philip the considerable kindness of pushing him > out the closest available window. Your final attempt at the restatement > of S/K came close to being comprehensible, and Philip's sojourn away has > not improved his comprehensibility or given him the modest wisdom to be > grateful for the assistence you've provided. > > If he hadn't popped back like a discarded bait frog from the dark pond of > WG-B, I'd have applied your last rendition of S/K to NAA and explained how > close to something useful I thought you'd got. However, he's > running the S/K > show, so it would only annoy him and confuse everyone to address "W/K". > > I'm sorry there is so little time, and so much of it has been > spent so very > badly, but seriously, as an opponent of S/K, the best version of > it I've yet > seen was _not_ written by Philip. > > Cheers, > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:53:46 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Getting difficult to wade through the mass of mis-information. Still, one does wish to keep matters clear, for the record: At 07:28 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >At 09:28 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >>In any event, Kent made a factual observation that that list is the only >>one to have received wide-spread review. As a statement of fact, the >>statement is correct. >The result of the "wide-spread review" was a number of lawsuits (IOD, PGP >Media, etc.), and the An extremely innovative interpretation of the history, in particular the creation of specific causation due to approximate correlation. Who would ever have thought that creating a list of names, having some public review of it, and making modifications accordingly would be the specific cause of all those other actions? I'll bet that most folks thought that this was an irrelevant detail. (The one exception was the lawsuit that, effectively, got immediately tossed out.) >>Or do you know of another list that has received anything close to an >>equivalent review? While the current community involvement is larger >>than a couple of years ago, the review the name list received, back then, >>was nonetheless quite extensive and did result in change. >Yes. Jon Postel's original IANA application list has never been challenged >after 4 years of peer review. Just ignored. It is the only list that meets >the NSF submission requirements (see below). >http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html A compendium of everyone's suggestions is not a derived list. In particular it is useless for an effort seeking 6-10 names. Further, it is curious that "just ignoring" something does not constitute a rather resounding (and negative) review. In case it is not clear, Simon, "review" is a process that engages a community of reviewers. Jon's providing an archival record of the full list of names suggested to him does not qualify. >>Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly >>changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven >>names? (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.) >Absolutely. The 7 IAHC TLDs were never been submitted to IANA via RFC1591 >process. Jon Postel confirmed this in person just before he died. How >important is this? Read the following letter from 1994 document. Doesn't really describe a process. To the extent that it does, it has not reflected current practise for a very long time. Moderately ironic is that this line of attack is using a document that has IANA as the source of the definition for procedure, but somehow the attack is trying at the same time to say that the IANA-authorized IAHC work was not valid. >>The original list is cited in the Excecutive Summary of : >> >Don't forget the USG officially invalidated this "recommendation". Simon, as I recall the USG made no statement at all about the name list or its development. If you claim otherwise, please cite the specific text that supports your claim. The rest of your note relied on the combination of a) sustaining this impressive confusion between the overall handling of the IAHC word, versus the specifics of the development and the name list, and b) treating the independent actions of independent name services as having any relevance at all to the IANA root. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:58:29 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 08:01 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >Don't be. You were right the first time. The POC made a collective policy >decision to accept pre-sold domain names. This was not an action limited >to individual registrars, but an action sanctioned by the POC: >http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4 >"There have been some suggestions that POC ban registrars from taking >"pre-registrations". After carefully considering this, POC decided not to >ban pre-registrations as it could not prevent other third parties >(non-CORE members) from queuing registrations and submitting them through >a CORE registrar. And indeed, there are many companies doing exactly this." Time for some remedial lessons in basic thinking: Simon's logic is: 1. The POC chose not to get involved in a topic. 2. Therefore the POC is claimed to have made "a collective policy decision to accept pre-sold domain names". Try to imagine logic lessons in early math classes, and then try to imagine passing the course with this sort of sloppy analysis. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:42:49 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 01:36 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: >Finally, would someone please produce the documents in which IANA >blessed these various registries with the right to start registering >domains within these TLDs? I've asked a few times here, I believe, >and haven't yet seen them. I've only just got here. :-) Here are two references: CORE registrars were given permission by the POC: http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4 The Postel draft applicants were given "working documents" from IANA such as this one: http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/current/2269.html "prior use. The registration entit(y/ies) have extended energy and effort in devoting resources to ensure the proper deployment of said iTLD." There are more documents out there. The newdom@ar.com archive appears to have been overwritten by more recent messages, so I can't point you there right now. Also, in a personal visit to IANA, I argued against charging for pre-sales but got veto'd by Bill Manning (much to Chris Ambler's amusement). Go figure. Best Regards, Simon - -- The future is still out there... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 21:11:03 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven At 02:03 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: Kent once again tries to revise history... > > The IAHC 7, on the other hand, were of dubious value, were not in the > > roots, and were only reachable by those willing to configure their > > systems to handle multiple independent roots. > >Nope. They were never reachable at all. CORE never set up alternate >roots (except for internal testing purposes); and it never sold >registrations in any alternate roots. Not true. A deal was cut by John Gilmore a few years ago (Feb 1998) to carry the 5 undisputed TLDs in the ORSC root because CORE had no test infrastructure: ftp://dns.vrx.net/pub/db.root ; The 5 non conflicting IAHC TLDs ; We recognize prior use by others for .web and .arts ; berk.serv.nic.info. IN A 208.1.127.5 cat.serv.nic.info. IN A 194.140.148.12 srs-sf.serv.nic.info. IN A 209.24.233.193 sf.serv.nic.info. IN A 140.174.2.72 melb.serv.nic.info. IN A 203.14.165.209 nom. 172000 IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. nom. 172000 IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. nom. 172000 IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. nom. 172000 IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. nom. 172000 IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. TXT "gnu@toad.com Feb98" shop. 172000 IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. shop. 172000 IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. shop. 172000 IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. shop. 172000 IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. shop. 172000 IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. TXT "gnu@toad.com Feb98" info. 172000 IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. info. 172000 IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. info. 172000 IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. info. 172000 IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. info. 172000 IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. TXT "gnu@toad.com Feb98" firm. 172000 IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. firm. 172000 IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. firm. 172000 IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. firm. 172000 IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. firm. 172000 IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. TXT "gnu@toad.com Feb98" rec. 172000 IN NS berk.serv.nic.info. rec. 172000 IN NS cat.serv.nic.info. rec. 172000 IN NS srs-sf.serv.nic.info. rec. 172000 IN NS sf.serv.nic.info. rec. 172000 IN NS melb.serv.nic.info. TXT "gnu@toad.com Feb98" > > If people want to keep operating TLDs outside the authoritative roots, > > fine. > >CORE has *never* done that. Not true. See above. > > if people want to sell SLDs within them, fine. > >CORE has *never* done that. The POC specifically *ALLOWED* pre-sales (a decision not to ban is an acceptance of a practice, if not an endorsement): http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/faq.html#2.4 Kent should know better since he was on the POC as one of the PAB observers: http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/poc-members.htm Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #79 *************************