From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #87 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, April 15 2000 Volume 01 : Number 087 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:52:09 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call Hello? I was told that this topic cannot be discussed here. One more message, and I'll start discussing it again, as nobody seems to be respecting the request of the group chair. Your choice. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Charles Broomfield" To: "Simon Higgs" Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > Simon Higgs wrote: > > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Wow, that's a bit rich... If so, then (as it's legally binding), any court > will automatically allow those into the legacy roots no doubt, so we have no > further need to discuss it, just wait for the positive outcome from your > lawsuits (still waiting...). > > > The NSF > > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > > > 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." > > It's nice and easy to quote one liners that can help towards ones own goal, > and forget about the whole context of the phrase within a letter (and I'm > NOT trying to second guess anyone). > In any case, we could say that RFC-1591 has been applied flawlessly so far, > as we have from RFC-1591: > --- > 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names > > In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a > hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set > of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the > generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two > letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that > any other TLDs will be created. > --- > > The phrase (within context) to note carefully being the last one. If we > decide that RFC-1591 should be followed, then we have extreme unlikelyness > that other TLDs will be created. > > Also, another point within RFC-1591 (accepting that "extremely unlikely" does > mean "relevantly possible") is: > --- > 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that > the designated manager is the appropriate party. > --- > And *THERE* we would probably all agree is what we've been fighting over for > the past few years, in finding a way to designate the appropiate party(ies) > as manager(s) of any new TLD(s). > > RFC-1591 doesn't talk about FCFS. FCFS was(is?) generally used by the > hostmaster@internic.net robot but for com/net/org registrations. > > As non-ccTLDs (as indicated by RFC-1591) are extremely unlikely, a lot > of fuzzy nice things have to happen, no *clear* procedures were available > (RFC-1591 says in various places to forget about rights and ownership, which > is precisely what entities like IOD want to talk about: the rights and > ownership of the TLDs), and forums were being created precisely to discuss > these issues, then (in light of that) it is understandable that the requests > were queued. In fact it would have even been understandable for them to have > been dumped all together!!! > > FCFS would come into play if significant parties agreed that both requesters > were equal (my opinion). As yet, WG-C doesn't seem to agree on who should be > the designated manager for any given TLD, and I'd say that we could consider > WG-C as a group of interested parties. So, in that light RFC-1591 would not > allow for any delegations yet (ever?). Where is the problem? > > > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore loser because > > you can't have your own ccTLD? > > You can't on the one hand say "let's apply RFC-1591" and just pick and > choose which parts you want to apply. Either you apply it whole, or you > discard it whole, or you draft a new document keeping the bits you want and > adding/discarding other (and then it is -of course- no longer RFC-1591). > > Have fun, but I don't read RFC-1591 as being "legally binding" nor even if > it were do I read it in such a manner that would say that Simon Higgs gets > the TLDs he wants. > > Enjoy. > > Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 100 14:34:10 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call My apologies to all. I got back from lunch, started reading my messages in chronological order (hadn't caught up with them all from this morning, but I believe in you read them newest->oldest in many cases you don't understand what the thread is about), and replied before finishing reading everything. Yours, John Broomfield. > Hello? I was told that this topic cannot be discussed here. > > One more message, and I'll start discussing it again, as nobody > seems to be respecting the request of the group chair. > > Your choice. > > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Charles Broomfield" > To: "Simon Higgs" > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:51 AM > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > > > > > Simon Higgs wrote: > > > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Wow, that's a bit rich... If so, then (as it's legally binding), any court > > will automatically allow those into the legacy roots no doubt, so we have > no > > further need to discuss it, just wait for the positive outcome from your > > lawsuits (still waiting...). > > > > > The NSF > > > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > > > > > 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." > > > > It's nice and easy to quote one liners that can help towards ones own > goal, > > and forget about the whole context of the phrase within a letter (and I'm > > NOT trying to second guess anyone). > > In any case, we could say that RFC-1591 has been applied flawlessly so > far, > > as we have from RFC-1591: > > --- > > 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names > > > > In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a > > hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set > > of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the > > generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two > > letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that > > any other TLDs will be created. > > --- > > > > The phrase (within context) to note carefully being the last one. If we > > decide that RFC-1591 should be followed, then we have extreme unlikelyness > > that other TLDs will be created. > > > > Also, another point within RFC-1591 (accepting that "extremely unlikely" > does > > mean "relevantly possible") is: > > --- > > 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that > > the designated manager is the appropriate party. > > --- > > And *THERE* we would probably all agree is what we've been fighting over > for > > the past few years, in finding a way to designate the appropiate > party(ies) > > as manager(s) of any new TLD(s). > > > > RFC-1591 doesn't talk about FCFS. FCFS was(is?) generally used by the > > hostmaster@internic.net robot but for com/net/org registrations. > > > > As non-ccTLDs (as indicated by RFC-1591) are extremely unlikely, a lot > > of fuzzy nice things have to happen, no *clear* procedures were available > > (RFC-1591 says in various places to forget about rights and ownership, > which > > is precisely what entities like IOD want to talk about: the rights and > > ownership of the TLDs), and forums were being created precisely to discuss > > these issues, then (in light of that) it is understandable that the > requests > > were queued. In fact it would have even been understandable for them to > have > > been dumped all together!!! > > > > FCFS would come into play if significant parties agreed that both > requesters > > were equal (my opinion). As yet, WG-C doesn't seem to agree on who should > be > > the designated manager for any given TLD, and I'd say that we could > consider > > WG-C as a group of interested parties. So, in that light RFC-1591 would > not > > allow for any delegations yet (ever?). Where is the problem? > > > > > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore loser > because > > > you can't have your own ccTLD? > > > > You can't on the one hand say "let's apply RFC-1591" and just pick and > > choose which parts you want to apply. Either you apply it whole, or you > > discard it whole, or you draft a new document keeping the bits you want > and > > adding/discarding other (and then it is -of course- no longer RFC-1591). > > > > Have fun, but I don't read RFC-1591 as being "legally binding" nor even if > > it were do I read it in such a manner that would say that Simon Higgs gets > > the TLDs he wants. > > > > Enjoy. > > > > Yours, John Broomfield. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:14:06 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] list administration I've unsubscribed Simon for four days, seeing as: [1] he's one of the people I had warned. [2] After Josh posted his message, I repeated my request that people drop this topic. Simon went ahead and continued the thread, provoking a bunch of other responses. Jon At 10:17 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote: >At 08:32 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote: > >hostmaster@internic.net (InterNIC/NSI) has the RFC1591 records too. > >These are also under Federal contract. "Lost" is not an option. > >>I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at >>IANA/ICANN. >> >>Sorry. >> >>Josh >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon >> > Higgs >> > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM >> > To: wg-c@dnso.org >> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call >> > >> > >> > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: >> > >> > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: >> > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not >> > posting) aren't >> > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. >> > > >> > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's >> > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs >> > that you self >> > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced >> > >standing to. >> > >> > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD >> > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF >> > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: >> > >> > 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." >> > >> > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore >> > loser because >> > you can't have your own ccTLD? >> > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:09:52 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] wg-c list management [a lurker responds that lurking is good for him/her, and otherwise innocuous] Your personal interests in list traffic can be met by using the archives. When the Intellectual Property Constituency decided to attack the process of WG-C, it was first asserted by Mike Heltzer that the co-chairs (then a plural) had errored in finding that consensus existed. When in response a vote was held, Rita Odin agrued that the construction of "majority" had to take into account "abstentions". The point has been offered that only one third of the eligible cast votes, as if that affected the validity of the vote process itself. I trust you see the problem, some people can't help but "write to" the peanut gallery, which is a rhetorical nuisanse, but others can't help but appeal to those very peanuts as proof of some process overturning rational. In a world of reasonable people, this wouldn't be a problem, however the DNS Wars have not brought out the best in all individuals, professional associations, or corporate persons. We are hardly out of the fix/tilt/break/junk WG-C woods yet. Within days the NC has to actually do something with what we've handed them. Besides, WG-C isn't a spectator sport, if you don't have dirt undre your nails you can't be said to be digging, and dig we must or let others dig. Dustily, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:44:42 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] wg-c list management At 06:09 PM 4/13/00 -0400, Eric Brunner wrote: >[a lurker responds that lurking is good for him/her, and otherwise innocuous] >Your personal interests in list traffic can be met by using the archives. Eric, I'll dive in to agree with your concern about 'ballot stuffing' but strongly DISagree about lurkers. The track record in the IETF is that lurkers are a very major benefit, in both directions. The lurkers get to stay aware of an activity, for a very low "cost". Archives require going to them; email just shows up. That might sound like a small difference but it is not. The benefit to the group is that a) a lurker can sometimes see an issue or a solution from a perspective that is otherwise missing; and b) working groups need to spiral outward through a spiral of community acceptance for their work. Lurkers on the primary mailing list form a first-line of acceptance. However, yes, we do have a problem on THIS list, and others involved in the DNS work. In the IETF, there is a strong background for oversight and control of the process. Misbehaviors are fewer, due to community pressure. (Growth of the Internet has brought a growth in the noise factor, more that it has brought a growth in the signal factor. Sigh.) >When the Intellectual Property Constituency decided to attack the process A set of techniques has been employed to create distraction and delay. Most of these efforts have been highly effective. (Take a look at the amount of time the working group has existed and compare it against the output of the group.) There are 3 things needed to fix that: 1. Clear sense of agenda, with the agenda having clear, meaningful and reasonable deliverables and dates 2. Agreement and persistence by primary contributors to stick to the agenda 3. (very) Firm enforcement of the agenda by working group management 4. Support for that working group management by upper management of the organization. This working group has the benefit of NONE of these, although there is some progress. It needs more. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:32:51 -0700 From: "Kroon, Richard" 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 -- No - --Richard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 07:25:09 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Reminder The deadline for voting on the consensus calls is MONDAY at 4 pm UTC (9 am in Los Angeles, noon in New York, 6 pm in Brussels, 1 am the following day in Tokyo). Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:24:35 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (041400.1) Oki all, The voting period closes on April 17th, early on tax day in the US. Voters residing in Indian Country are advised to consult their local tax authority and file on Indian Time ;-) By now most of the voting actually has taken place, so all that remains are two major camps, some small number of prior non-voters now voting, and any number of accidents, not limited to people realizing that voting FOR S/K was a reversible accident ;-). The PPC votes I expect to go mostly N.Y.x, or not bother to vote at all. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Lupo | C | no | | NO | | Caroline Chicoine | C | no | | NO | | Mariah Garvey | | | NEW | NO | | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | NO | | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | NO | | The prior 6-10 YES votes I expect to go mostly Y.Y.x or Y.N.x. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Maher | A,D | yes | | YES | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | Joseph Friedman | A,D | yes | | YES | | Kathryn KL | | | NEW | YES | | Kyle Taylor | | | | YES | | Mark Measday | A | yes | | YES | | Mikki Barry | B | yes | | YES | | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Rick H. Wesson | | yes | | YES | | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | YES | | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | Siegfried Langenbach | A | yes | | YES | | And the actual votes so far. As usual, errors to me. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Annie Renard | C | no | | | Y.Y.N | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | N.Y.N | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | Y.Y.y | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Greg Schuckman | | | NEW | | Y.y.N | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | Y.Y.Y | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | N.Y.Y | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | Y.Y.Y | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Kendall Dawson | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | y.N.N | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Kit Winter | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Richard Kroon | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Simon Higgs | | | NEW | | Y.a.a | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.N | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Y.x.N Votes: 45 (of 150 maximum possible, 54 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 Issue #1: YES 38 Issue #2: YES 32 Issue #3: YES 13 Corrections: None since the last Administrivia. Comments: None since the last Administrivia. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:02:18 -0500 From: david@aminal.com Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes Because various registry business models may imply different levels of technical capability, it is reasonable to get a sample during the testbed. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO No (not technical management) PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE No (already being addressed in the appropriate forum) David Schutt Speco, Inc. 'Vote early, and often!' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:26:03 -0400 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 10:58 AM 4/13/00 -0700, you 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. > I don't know how you are using these terms so, No. They should all be restricted in some form or other (in the semantic meaning (or lack thereof) in the TLD suffix, if nothing else. > > >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. >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. > I would like to see an idns, but I defer to my technical colleagues who inform me that the IETF is better suited to this task at this time so I abstain. > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 18:22:43 -0400 From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE No PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO No PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE No (It is my understanding that there is an IETF effort underway. I would support the idea of an informational session at the next ICANN meeting for any interested parties. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #87 *************************