From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #103 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, July 30 2000 Volume 01 : Number 103 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:29:39 -0400 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] 50 grand to enter the pagent More than a few of us who have been around for a while are compelled to smile at the way things have turned out. Recalling that Jon Postel and his confederates (IPOC) convinced a number of first-generation Internet entrepreneurs to part with a substantial amount of cash and a greater amount of time, blood, sweat and tears (only to find out that there was no substance to the IAHC plan and less spine in IANA than in a tankful of medusas), I find myself looking at the situation and unable to keep myself from hearing these fateful words: KICK THE FOOTBALL, CHARLIE BROWN. I PROMISE THAT ((**THIS TIME**)) I WON'T PULL IT AWAY AGAIN AT THE LAST INSTANT. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:11:41 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] 50 grand to enter the pagent At 02:29 PM 7/18/00 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: Obviously haven't been around long enough... ;-) The IAHC/IPOC wasn't working with the first generation. IAHC/POC/CORE was working with the second generation (since they completely alienated the first generation). Historically, the first generation only had to pony up $2000 and a 2% royalty according to draft Postel. Charlie Brown is trying to kick the ball for the THIRD time now. Anyway, someone has beaten you to it (with pictures): http://www.superroot.org/commentary.html >More than a few of us who have been around for a while >are compelled to smile at the way things have turned out. >Recalling that Jon Postel and his confederates (IPOC) >convinced a number of first-generation Internet entrepreneurs >to part with a substantial amount of cash and a greater amount >of time, blood, sweat and tears (only to find out that there was >no substance to the IAHC plan and less spine in IANA than in >a tankful of medusas), I find myself looking at the situation and >unable to keep myself from hearing these fateful words: > >KICK THE FOOTBALL, CHARLIE BROWN. I PROMISE THAT >((**THIS TIME**)) I WON'T PULL IT AWAY AGAIN AT THE LAST >INSTANT. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 10:46:00 -0700 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: [wg-c] RE: Give me a plan. > Behalf Of Einar Stefferud: Sunday, July 30, 2000 2:36 AM > > Hi Roeland -- Hello Stef, > "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote: > > > <---SNIP-> > > > > Yes, this is all true. But, my paper never got into voting > > issues. The assumption is that meta processes would be emplaced > > that would protect the minority until it came of age. The second > > and third year would definitely see some changes. If the process > > were to be frozen for the first two years then the slght > > numerical advantage NSI had should be effectively neutralized. > > Note also, the paper purposely stayed far away from political > > forms. It is strictly an operational submission, a how-to. > > I think it is also time to consider that it should be possible for TLD > holders to be acceptable even though they might not populate it for > public use. Robin has already stated disagreement with this concept, in private mail. However, I think that was a reflexive disagreement, on limited principles, and not fully thought out. I didn't chose to argue it at the time. Due, in large part, to lack of time. > Their cannot be anything wrong with someone signing up for a TLD and > making it totally private, but also reserve the right to make > it public > at some future time, which means they must have the right to not make > the SLDs public according to any schedule. Indeed, a charter for a TLD could (and in my case, does) include restrictions on who could access the resolver and what they resolve. Currently, VPN registrations are done manually. FTN registrations are automated from a nodelist, but resolution is restricted to defined systems. The former for security, the latter to avoid protocol interaction problems (no internal Internet technology). Also for the latter, as FTN gateway technology is developed it may be opened up to the public. > I note here that there is now no need for anyone to populate their SLD > with public names below their SLD;-)... Also a case with MHSC.NET right now. I have entire sub-domains (3LDs) that are not visible to the general Internet. Also, my name servers do not allow zone transfers, except to selected hosts, in my ACLs. Also note that my off-site secondaries (blacktop) do not resolve everything that NS[1-3].MHSC.NET do (I love BIND8 ). > I can see a very large demand for TLD holders to not want to > display in > public all their SLDs, though we might require that they at > least occupy > their TLD space with at least one public visible site, even if it only > says "Keep OUT --- Private Property". We, as a group, have never gone down to this level of detail because of problems/arguments in the meta-layer. But, I have long maintained that some sort of naming convention needs to be emplaced. Just what that convention may be is almost irrelevent, as long as it exists and is consistent. It is the root-registry's job to create and maintain that convention, IMHO. In my WG-C submission, I allude to this with the requirement of a minimal auditable service level. That SLA should spell out the nameing convention for the minimum SLA that qualifies a TLD. > I say his in reply to Roeland because I think he might be in this box, > so he just might agree with me on this. And, be able to > further explain the point;-)... Yes, I am in this box. I hope that I have explained adequately. I am actually a little impatient, like Richard, and want to get on down to operational issues. My WG-C submission as an attempt to get past the meta-layer bickering and on down to the how-to, which was the original point to ICANN/DNSO/WG-C, IMHO. That some chose to rehash five-year-old issues instead was something that I could not avoid , nor could Jonathan. Given the circumstances, I think Jonathan did an adequate chair job. But, I don't think that WG-C, as a group, did the job it was chartered for, unless you take my paper into account (for the record: http://www.dnso.net/mhsc-tld.htm). My paper was not a group effort, it was an MHSC effort. IMHO, many on the WG-C chose to bicker at the meta-layer because there is more wiggle-room there. At the operational how-to level, it either works (makes sense) or it doesn't. Also, many didn't want to profess their ignorance of actual operational practices (had no clue of what made sense). Many of the WG-C wouldn't know a root-level login if it bit them on the nose. They're not even sudo-ers. NOTE: I hope no one minds that I CC WG-C on this. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #103 **************************