Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

Chris,

Being a friend of Jon Postel is not a prerequisite for being a pioneer
and entrepeneur in the domain registry arena, or in America.

Name.Space is as legitimate as any other operation that has running
code, including Core, IOD, and the others who may have running code
and continuous operations.  Name.Space has continuously operated its
registry since 1996 and has been totally uninterrupted since then,
and has invested in software development and infrastructure, and has
an active client base in both emerging and legacy domains.

Among the achievements of Name.Space are:

Realtime registry and secure online DNS management
Smart Whois http://swhois.net
The first to break the perception barrier of unlimited TLDs
Famous names policy
Model Privacy Policy

Simply because a few professional nay-sayers on this list refuse
to recognize the existance and achievements of Name.Space does
not remove the standing from Name.Space within this process, or
its standing as a functioning registry, with all the same rights
as Core and your company, and others.

Name.Space is already accredited by ICANN as a registrar for
legacy domains.  Can IOD claim that?  If not, does that mean that
IOD can't be a registry here?  No, it doesn't.  Just in the same
way that being a friend of Jon Postel does not automatically include
nor exclude any entity from acting as a registry under ICANN or
otherwise.

Paul

> 
> There are a very small handful of companies (less than 5) that put together
> registries back in the days of Postel I and Postel II, after being told (on
> public mailing lists by Postal and Manning themselves) that the Postel II
> draft was to be an RFC. This was contemporary with IANA, in the form
> of Postel and Manning, taking applications for new registries in the form
> of NIC templates.
> 
> These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and
> Manning are still available as is the IANA list.
> 
> As I said, there are less than 5 companies that put together running code
> based on those events. Of those 5, I know of only IOD that is still
> running today. I suspect that of the other 5, one or two might still
> be running.
> 
> I would also make a position for CORE as a registry, as they are a
> business entity that spent considerable money to create their registry
> (regardless of the poor choice of TLDs, including two that are in
> violation of prior use and trademark) and did so based upon the
> expectations given to them by IANA at the time.
> 
> That makes 2 pioneers that I know of. Even if all 5 from the Postel
> II days are still running, that makes 6 pioneers who established
> registries based upon the urgings of IANA. There is no question
> as to who the pioneers are - they can show continuous operation,
> they can show participation in the fora, and they can show NIC
> templates to IANA based on IANA's request for them.
> 
> I suspect that if a serious call for pioneers to self-identify themselves
> were put out, including a simple check of whether or not they
> meet even the minimum requirements, you'll find that there
> are no more than 5 pioneers who are up to the task of being
> put in the testbed.
> 
> You have consensus for 6-10 new TLDs. Call it 10, then. Take
> the 5 pioneers and add 5 more to be determined. Make all of them
> (pioneers included) have to meet clear and objective criteria. Make
> the criteria tough, as this is a testbed. We've got a start with the
> registrar criteria. Toughen it and move along.
> 
> Perform the objective examination and then start the testbed.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> chris@the.web
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
> To: "rmjmeyer" <rmjmeyer@magnetpoint.com>
> Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>; "Paul
> Garrin" <pg@name-space.com>; "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p
> 
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > On 16-Mar-2000 rmjmeyer wrote:
> > > To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in
> the
> > > face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited.
> >
> > To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the
> people
> > who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes
> that
> > have led us all to be here.
> >
> > They can continue their operations, in their own "virtual internet."  But
> they
> > have no bearing here.
> >
> > - --
> > William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> > http://userfriendly.com/
> > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > 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/
> >
> > iD8DBQE40Du88zLmV94Pz+IRAiOhAKD83oTH2To0QiC3Q45ygiu4MFdI4gCgy557
> > ARaerw1p3vshqRmbZxNAfoA=
> > =pRd9
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>