From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #83 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, April 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 083 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:35:42 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At least you're honest about it. -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William X. Walsh" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 2:27 PM > Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > On 11-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > You are proposing a WG on a *policy* matter. > > > > Not unlike everything else this and every other workgroup has done. > > > > > ICANN's very own mandate says that they oversee TECHNICAL > > > COORDINATION of the Internet. > > > > > > How do you justify this? > > > > That this mandate is nothing more than an illusion. > > > > - -- > > 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/ > > > > iD8DBQE485jP8zLmV94Pz+IRAlbwAKCxANSEJ2ySRMfMsc7TIfQG2C5QaQCfSTmA > > /RgxU14qK5cbfAbQd3n86m4= > > =tU88 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:16:48 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] list rules At 10:54 AM 4/11/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: I apologize (I know who I am). I would also like to request the chair's assistance in maintaining some degree of honesty and truth about the real world facts being posted here, that are affecting the work being done. There are a number of untruths being spread to justify positions in the test registry. The ICANN process cannot be based upon lies. If not addressed here, these issues will end up being resolved outside this working group in the courts (one conflict already is in court with the judge refusing to dismiss the case), much to the detriment of ICANN's public image and real world credibility. > Four people managed to post 54 messages yesterday. This is a > profound >inconvenience for the rest of us, who are trying to get some work done. >Once more, a reminder: Ground rules for the working group include basic >courtesy and respect for others, and a limit of any subscriber's postings >to *two per day.* Persistent violators (you know who you are) will be >sanctioned. > >Jon Best Regards, Simon - -- The future is still out there... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:15:57 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal At 01:28 AM 4/11/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 11-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > b) the entry is administered by folks at "lanminds.com". > > > > We could stop, here, since that sufficiently shows that Simon's > > demonstration did NOT show anything at all about the ability to resolve > > .info. However... > >whois.arin.net also shows that IP address to be in a block delegated to >lanminds.com by Sprint, and I can see no connection to CORE whatsoever. You haven't looked hard enough. :-) Please see http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/signat-l.htm for the Lanminds signature to the gtld-mou. Please also http://corenic.org/region.htm#North%20America for the Lanminds listing as a CORE registrar. >Simon, I hope you have an answer to this, because this really does go directly >to your credibility. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in not checking >your other "facts" you have presented, and debated the principles rather than >the accuracy. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part. Go waste some time checking the facts. Learn for yourself. They're only one click away. The above references are a good start. Then check out http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01619.html. That is where the DNS information comes from. Directly from CORE HQ. What does it prove? That all depends if you understand what is really going on or not. Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:32:57 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] "It Won't Work" The principles work by reference to the gTLDs already live compared against the proposed new gTLDs. They work as general principles, providing general guidance, but will not mechanistically produce the precise text strings to be selected. They must be applied by people. One will be able to quibble with the exact application, but one should also be able to use the principles to prevent a gross misapplication. Gross misapplications should be easy to spot. Here are some examples. The principles would suggest that the 6-10 new gTLDs should not be .biz, .firm, .store, .shop, .buy, .sell, .commercial, and .com2. One, two, maybe even three of those (which are all obviously commercial) might be okay within the 6-10, but at some point, you come up against Principle (4) on "Diversity." Exactly where in the spectrum you violate (4) is open to debate, but at some point, you get there. When we do this again, implementing 100, 1000, or more new gTLDs, then I read the principles to be flexible enough to accommodate many more commercial or mixed comm/noncomm TLDs. Diversity with a universe of 1000+ is much different than within 6-10. With 100,000+ new gTLDs, the Diversity concept completely falls away. Similarly, Principle (3) suggests that none of the new gTLDs should be open, generic TLDs with the strings .comm or .commercial, since there would be little textual differentiation from .com. Principle (3) should allow, however, a ".comm" that would be chartered, for example, for the purpose of "commentary" on existing .com web sites. The charter would be used to differentiate what the text string did not. At some point, when the user population accepts the idea of new gTLDs and understands that .com is different than .comm, then I read the rules as flexible enough to accommodate .comm as an open, generic TLD. I read the principles as general, flexible guidelines, which in the phased implementation that this WG has proposed, should be valuable. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] list rules - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > I would also like to request the chair's assistance in maintaining some > degree of honesty and truth about the real world facts being posted here, > that are affecting the work being done. There are a number of untruths > being spread to justify positions in the test registry. The ICANN process > cannot be based upon lies. If not addressed here, these issues will end up > being resolved outside this working group in the courts (one conflict > already is in court with the judge refusing to dismiss the case), much to > the detriment of ICANN's public image and real world credibility. I find this post insulting, Simon, and a blatent attempt at manipulation. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE486vQ8zLmV94Pz+IRAosgAKDtsq6ojNm1OW0KgW+jECsmkFr+vQCg9vYh YzOii47LOsCJMp6l4bXfTco= =Z/aH - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:50:44 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal At 12:34 AM 4/11/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Here's yet another example of Dave's mis-information. >We could stop, here, since that sufficiently shows that Simon's >demonstration did NOT show anything at all about the ability to resolve >.info. However... I never said it would resolve forwards. I'm just pointing out that it *WAS* in use, and the records are still visible to all if you know where to look for them. No more, no less. >STEP #2 > >lanminds.com is not part of CORE and is not listed by ICANN. Not true. Lanminds [CORE-48] is listed on the CORE web site as a member: http://corenic.org/region.htm#North%20America None of the members of CORE are listed on ICANN's site. You'll find a sufficient chain of evidence to link Lanminds to CORE, and this particular server as one of the TLD servers for CORE. It may be using the IANA root now, but there's enough forensic information to understand previous involvement of the events that you and Kent are now trying to "revise" to force the IAHC TLDs into the test-bed. Best Regards, Simon - -- I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 16:10:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Mark's Proposal - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: >>STEP #2 >> >>lanminds.com is not part of CORE and is not listed by ICANN. > > Not true. Lanminds [CORE-48] is listed on the CORE web site as a member: But that does not mean that their actions were in anyway official or at the behest of the CORE. The actions of a single registrar, and what they name hosts within their own network, have absolutely no bearing on anything at all, Simon, unless you can show that lanminds was not acting independently. I'm really tired of seeing these weak arguments stretched to such lengths in order to bolster illegitimate claims to top level domains. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE487Dl8zLmV94Pz+IRAtVwAJ9A57lirIE341CRkZ0HuNcVt0UTtQCePSCJ nuGTR8cuwcph68HwS/G1Kf0= =eLcr - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:47:32 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > Here are the three items. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level > domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. Yes. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to > current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based > on all of > the following principles : > > 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. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for > charter enforcement where relevant and desired. > > 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net > users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string > and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string. > > 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial > goals. > > 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used > as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. Yes. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working > group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII > characters. Yes. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:44:20 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia 139 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) 15 subscribers of list 'wg-c-digest' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) Note that Jeff Trexler is counted 3 times, as is Mark Measday, so the number of actual subscribers to both wg-c lists is 150, not 154. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | a.y.y | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | y.N.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Y.x.x Votes: 13 (of 150 maximum possible, 49 being the ballots cast in March) Legend: Y and N are obvious, y, n, and a mean I _think_ the statement is yes, no or abstain x means that at the proposition doesn't appear to be heading to consensus Comments: The PPC party typically votes just prior to the ballot period closure, and may vote N.Y.a. Votes from Justine McCarthy will be discarded before being counted, just to encourage him to carry on being himself. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:46:47 +0900 From: Dongman Lee Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. Yes. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the > following principles : Yes. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. Yes. Dongman Lee - -- Dongman Lee, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Info & Computer Engineering Information and Communications University 58-4 Hwaam-Dong, Yusung-Ku Taejon 305-348 Korea E-mail: dlee@icu.ac.kr Web: http://www.icu.ac.kr Tel: 042-866-6113 Fax: 042-866-6222 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:31:12 -0400 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT - ---- Original Message ----- At 11:29 AM 4/11/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, > from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. YES >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current > technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, > should be based on all of the following principles: YES >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to > develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using > non-ASCII characters. NO. I reiterate my support for internationalized domain names and multi-cultural TLDs, but the development of standards for representation of non-ASCII character sets should be left to the IETF. - --Milton Mueller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 03:53:50 +0200 (MET DST) From: Joe Kelsey Subject: Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven Simon, I have absolutely no idea why you insist on beating this issue into the ground, even to the point of posting stuff that *proves* you are wrong. The quote below cites a *negative* decision by the POC. By all rules of logic, you cannot move from a *negative* decision to infer anything at all about the opposite conjecture. As everyone except you and Ambler have continuously pointed out, CORE did not accept money for any so-called "pre-registrations". CORE was supposed to operate a *registry*, which was never put into operation. The *registrars* who signed up with CORE were free to do anything that they thought they could get away with, including accepting money from fools for speculative purposes, much as IOD currently does. However, IOD wants to work both sides of its street, operating as both registry and registrar, thus trying to become yet another monopoly a-la NSI. This thread has long since served its purpose. Higgs and Ambler are wrong and nothing they say can make them right. /Joe Simon Higgs writes: > >>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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:24:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > Here are the three items. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. I agree only that there ought to be thousands more top level domains. And since 6-10 is clearly closer to "thousands" than zero, I support that much of the proposed consensus. However, I do not agree that any new TLDs should be restricted in any way except by the free and changible choice of the operator of the TLD. (I.e. I believe that any restriction ought to be imposed and enforced by the operator, not externally by ICANN.) > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of > the following principles : Since I do not believe in constrained TLDs - to my mind they are too far from "technical coordination" and their existance implies an enforcement mechanism that would turn ICANN into an unaccountable international policeman. Thus, I do not agree with this item. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. While I believe in internationalized domain names and feel that they are strongly needed, I believe that as between this group and the IETF, the technical definitions and standardization of how they shall be represented, what size limits shall be imposed, and how they shall be mapped into the octets composing the labels of DNS names are matters better left to the IETF. While there *may* be policy issues regarding the deployment of internationalized domain names and TLDs once the technical choices have been made, I do not believe that the technical constraints are yet known and hence policy would be made in a partial knowledge vacuum and might be premature. As such, I can't agree to this point in the abstract. However, in the interim, before there are clear technical decisions made by the IETF, I might be open to agreement on more specific proposals that are independent of how internationalized DNS names might be represented. We also have much to learn by watching how things develop in the Asian language DNS systems that are currently being deployed in via non-ICANN root systems. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Apr 00 22:26:28 EDT From: Richard Campbell Subject: Re: [[wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT] I vote 1. yes 2. yes; esp with ref to a chartered TLD, which in my case I think easily meets all the principles (that is, a US chartered bank is easily identifiable and verifiable). 3. No. I'd rather suggest a group to iron out any tech questions, leave the policy for later. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. > > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of > the following principles : > > 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. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for > charter enforcement where relevant and desired. > > 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net > users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by > the marketing and functionality associated with the string. > > 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding > Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial > goals. > > 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > > 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used > as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. > > Jon ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:01:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. Yes. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of > the following principles : Yes > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. No. I agree with the statements by others that this is very premature. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE489kW8zLmV94Pz+IRAk8KAJ4+UWfhXA9ffgZdJUcJRI5Cd+yUSACff3vN IXyCX43tmSnr5TbjCsb0peM= =vCR9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:21:53 +0800 From: Jerry Yap Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE - - Yes > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO - - Yes > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE - - Yes Jerry Yap i-DNS.net International ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:28:50 +0800 From: James Seng Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT The work we currently undertake at IETF IDN WG involves Informational RFCs on requirements and documentation of proposals for IDN. For this, I mention that the WG is on schedule to Jon. However, I have no idea when a standard for IDN will come out from IETF. Aside, I vote: YES, YES, ABSTAIN. - -James Seng ps: Personally, I am optimistic of the progress of IDN. (Well, I have to be to work on such a crazy idea :-) > James Seng, who's the co-chair of the IETF IDN WG, wrote to me that in > his view the WG is on track to finish its work by July. If we suggest a > DNSO WG now, as a practical matter the NC won't act on it until the > Yokohama meeting (that is, July). So I've been figuring that the technical > work *will* precede the policy work. > > That said, Harald knows infinitely more about this topic than I do. > > Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:00:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: [wg-c] Consensus Vote #1 - No. #2 - No. #3 - No. Thanks, - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:07:20 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] "It Won't Work" Jonathan, Thanks for the quick response. At 05:18 PM 4/11/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I understand the proponents of the S/K principles to >argue that the S/K standards fall in between: that they will offer some >useful policy guidance to ICANN even though they're not totally >constraining. In effect this means that this is just a list that we -- the working group, if the final vote shows positive consensus -- hope will provide some assistance to ICANN, but we have no idea whether it will really be useful or how they should use it. It certainly means that there are no expectations that anyone can apply the list objectively or reliably when making choices. Nor can anyone, then, claim that the list was mis-used (over- or under-used). For a loose, subjective process that should be fine. For one as politicized as this, I hope the absence of stricter interpretation and application does not come back to haunt. d/ ps. If you believe that my summary is inaccurate, please restate it. The summary was seriously meant to capture the essence of your response. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:51:13 -0700 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE ---NO For the same reason that David pointed out--ie: Not our original goal, the sheer magnitude of this task, and ensured delay. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO -- NO Again, I'm going to have to agree with Crocker--in this incarnation they serve much better as "points of information" or loose guidelines. I would vote for them if they were used in this capacity. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE -- NO Also believe that this is beyond the scope of this group and to attain truly international names will be difficult since, as Derrida said, "There is nothing outside of the text..." Also, I don't think there is anything inherently illegal or godless about having made domain names available on a pre-registration basis. Companies can do whatever they like on a pre-registration basis. Moreover, There is never going to be a completely level playing field. If we outlaw lists, preference will be given to those that have the right information in the most timely manner--maybe those that don't have to be at a job during the day. In the mad race for registration, it may become a question of how fast/powerful an individual's computer is or what kind of technology they can employ. Finally, we simply cannot dictate that companies are forbidden from creating lists or taking reservations. But this issue also seems to be beyond the scope of this group. - --Justin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:11:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Kelsey Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Jonathan Weinberg writes: > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. NO. Stick to a single model. Add models as you get experience with the problems associated with a particular model. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical > constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of > the following principles : NO. I agree completely with Dave Crocker. The criteria are completely subjective and open to multiple interpretations. As we have seen, there are those in every group such as this who are willing to deliberately misinterpret even the most carefully worded document if it means that they can either cause trouble or find a loophole for their favorite scam. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. NO. I agree with Karl Auerbach. This is a technical matter best left to the IETF. /Joe Kelsey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 22:25:59 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven >As everyone except you and Ambler have continuously pointed out, CORE >did not accept money for any so-called "pre-registrations". CORE was >supposed to operate a *registry*, which was never put into operation. >The *registrars* who signed up with CORE were free to do anything that >they thought they could get away with, including accepting money from >fools for speculative purposes, much as IOD currently does. However, >IOD wants to work both sides of its street, operating as both registry >and registrar, thus trying to become yet another monopoly a-la NSI. First of all IOD does not want to operate as both registry and registrar, and I resent you claiming such. IOD wants to operate as registry only. The registrar functions on IOD's site are there until the procedure for adding new TLDs to the root is enacted, much like NSI was both until their new operating procedure was enacted. Secondly, you would be VERY surprised what CORE has done. Unfortunately, due to active litigation, I can't talk about it. But what I can say is that the registrars pay a monthly fee to CORE. As such, the separation of registry and registrar that CORE like to hold out falls on its face when you realize that the registrars are financially bound to CORE. Additionally, CORE dictates policy to the registrars, and this is key: While CORE likes to claim that the registrars are free to do as they wish, this is just not true. Case in point, the domain transfer issue that became apparent just last month, wherein a CORE registrar made it public that they were unable to affect a transfer due to CORE rules and policies. Perhaps before you berate someone, you do a little research and know what you're talking about? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:57:44 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 16:47 11.04.2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >James Seng, who's the co-chair of the IETF IDN WG, wrote to me that in >his view the WG is on track to finish its work by July. If we suggest a >DNSO WG now, as a practical matter the NC won't act on it until the >Yokohama meeting (that is, July). So I've been figuring that the technical >work *will* precede the policy work. James' schedule is for the current IDN work, which includes setting requirements and evaluating current proposals. I suspect that we need some work after that to get a working technical proposal. That said, it is good to have the Names Council indicate that they are going to support a single, standards-based solution to this. So the issue should be placed on their table. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #83 *************************