Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #25
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 20 2000            Volume 01 : Number 025

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:58:45 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

>and the fact that Chris Ambler's ".WEB" request was #3 in the list
>for that particular TLD.....

As has been pointed out, the other two entries in that list
were, according to IANA, not requests to run a registry, but
suggestions that .web would be a good TLD to add. IOD's
request was the first request to run the .web registry.
I won't go over the rest, which has been hashed out more
times than I know over the last 4+ years.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:10:02 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, Brussels, 28 March

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:00:58 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>Any consideration of .EU must take into account the possibilities of:
>
>.AP  for Asia Pacific
>.AF (or some letters) for Africa, or Pan-African Union
>.C?  for the CariCom Caribbean Community,
>.l? for the Latin Americans
>.N? for NAFTA- the North American Free Trade Accociation
>
>and GOD only knows how many other trade and economic treaty associations.

People seem to overlook who makes the decisions here.

Some UN body decides who gets added to ISO3166.  They have decided EU
gets added.  They would also decide if any other "entity" asks for one
of the above.

Once an entry into ISO3166 gets made then ICANN/IANA role seems to be
simply who it will be delegated to, not whether it will be delegated.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:11:07 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>I write to request you assistance in passing the following invitation 
>> to 
>>>those within your constituencies who may have an interest in the 
>> creation 
>>>of a .EU TLD.
>
>Are not applications for new Top Level Domains premature until a process exists
>under which applications can be accepted and processed?  Why should the group
>wanting to introduce .EU have any standing ahead of any other proposals and
>applications for new Top Level Domain registries?

Because .eu is a ccTLD not a gTLD.

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:13:36 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:44:34 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:

>Can you please point me to a specific document where the NSF gave IANA the
>authority to approve new gTLDs?   

Can anyone point to a specific document which gave the NSF the
authority to have any say on gTLDs?

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:12:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 DPF wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>>I write to request you assistance in passing the following invitation 
>>> to 
>>>>those within your constituencies who may have an interest in the 
>>> creation 
>>>>of a .EU TLD.
>>
>>Are not applications for new Top Level Domains premature until a process
>>exists
>>under which applications can be accepted and processed?  Why should the group
>>wanting to introduce .EU have any standing ahead of any other proposals and
>>applications for new Top Level Domain registries?
> 
> Because .eu is a ccTLD not a gTLD.
> 

OK.  But that is not how it is being presented.  I understand they are pursuing
ISO-3166 recognition, but they are proposing the TLD seperate from that
process.  With ISO-3166 recognition, nothing more than the standard IANA
application for delegation of the ccTLD is necessary.  

So if they are going the ccTLD route, what is there to discuss here?

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
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/

iD8DBQE41d1n8zLmV94Pz+IRAno5AKDo+JPgqmqriuSZaUV+eS8Hf8+6mQCfeBQk
/RdiBKLXO+L62suU9ynoSik=
=SeP7
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:44:54 GMT
From: "Mark Measday" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, Brussels, 28 March

You probably want to differentiate between the EU, an organisation to which 
members have ceded sovereign power through a series of treaties and the 
members of .int, effectively treaty organisations, although the distinction 
is admittedly blurred.

>From: DPF <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, 
>Brussels, 28 March
>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:10:02 +1200
>
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:00:58 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> >Any consideration of .EU must take into account the possibilities of:
> >
> >.AP  for Asia Pacific
> >.AF (or some letters) for Africa, or Pan-African Union
> >.C?  for the CariCom Caribbean Community,
> >.l? for the Latin Americans
> >.N? for NAFTA- the North American Free Trade Accociation
> >
> >and GOD only knows how many other trade and economic treaty associations.
>
>People seem to overlook who makes the decisions here.
>
>Some UN body decides who gets added to ISO3166.  They have decided EU
>gets added.  They would also decide if any other "entity" asks for one
>of the above.
>
>Once an entry into ISO3166 gets made then ICANN/IANA role seems to be
>simply who it will be delegated to, not whether it will be delegated.
>
>DPF
>________________________________________________________________________
><david at farrar dot com>
>NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:58:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 DPF wrote:
> Some UN body decides who gets added to ISO3166.  They have decided EU
> gets added.  They would also decide if any other "entity" asks for one
> of the above.
> 
> Once an entry into ISO3166 gets made then ICANN/IANA role seems to be
> simply who it will be delegated to, not whether it will be delegated.

The problem seems to be that indeed .EU is not yet on the official ISO3166
list.  Unless this has changed very recently.  The code was reserved, but not
officially designated. 

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
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/

iD8DBQE41fZI8zLmV94Pz+IRApJUAJ9tYVnlsY7OdXcAhYAXRHTYqWUzOACfbOaX
Js3RGLWoOy3YxZSXxN8THwE=
=4avM
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:16:23 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, Brussels, 28 March

John,

IMHO, there's a difference between Europe and other regional 
organizations, which is that Europe is going towards a stricter 
political union, and already has (to a certain extent) a common 
currency.
This has been a determinant factor for the ISO-3166/MA in their decision
 about EU. to the best of my knowledge, the other regional entities are 
far from reaching this goal (if they are at all interested in pursuing 
this goal at all).

Roberto

>
>Hi Peter,
>	"EU" is lined up for inclusion in ISO-3166 (where all ccTLDs find
>their origins). If any of your examples or GOd knows how many other 
trade
>and economic treaty associations have an entry in ISO-3166, then by all

>means proceed. AFAIK, none of your examples are seeking inclusion in
>ISO-3166.
>Yours, John Broomfield.
>
>
>> Any consideration of .EU must take into account the possibilities of:

>> 
>> .AP  for Asia Pacific
>> .AF (or some letters) for Africa, or Pan-African Union
>> .C?  for the CariCom Caribbean Community,
>> .l? for the Latin Americans
>> .N? for NAFTA- the North American Free Trade Accociation
>> 
>> and GOD only knows how many other trade and economic treaty 
associations.
>> 
>> Peter de Blanc
>> .VI admin
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of 
Roberto
>> Gaetano
>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 6:25 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Subject: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD
,
>> Brussels, 28 March
>> 
>> 
>> Any further comments on .eu?
>> 
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>> 
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:36:11 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

William,

You wrote:

>
>OK.  But that is not how it is being presented.  I understand they are 
pursuing
>ISO-3166 recognition, but they are proposing the TLD seperate from that

>process.

The working paper released by the Commission (see: http://europa.eu.int/
comm/information_society/policy/internet/pdf/doteu_en.pdf) speaks about 
a ccTLD.

Also, about the status of the request for establishment of the 
"official" IS0-3166-1 code, the Maintenance Agency has already notified 
that they have no objection on the use of .eu as ccTLD, even if the code
 is still formally in the reserved list (AFAIK).
See also http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/new02_00.html for 
the official position of the ISO-3166/MA.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:31:17 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, Brussels, 28 March

Of course ISO-3166 comes first, because IANA "is not in the business of
deciding who or what is a country", Now, however, we are moving towards
ICANN, and a new set of rules.

With appropriate consensus, ICANN itself could insert (or delete) entries in
the Root without any direct relationship to ISO-3166.

Also, seeking inclusion in ISO-3166 is an available option to any qualified
body.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
Charles Broomfield
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2893 7:44 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU
TLD, Brussels, 28 March

Hi Peter,
	"EU" is lined up for inclusion in ISO-3166 (where all ccTLDs find
their origins). If any of your examples or GOd knows how many other trade
and economic treaty associations have an entry in ISO-3166, then by all
means proceed. AFAIK, none of your examples are seeking inclusion in
ISO-3166.
Yours, John Broomfield.

> Any consideration of .EU must take into account the possibilities of:
>
> .AP  for Asia Pacific
> .AF (or some letters) for Africa, or Pan-African Union
> .C?  for the CariCom Caribbean Community,
> .l? for the Latin Americans
> .N? for NAFTA- the North American Free Trade Accociation
>
> and GOD only knows how many other trade and economic treaty associations.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> .VI admin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 6:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD,
> Brussels, 28 March
>
>
> Any further comments on .eu?
>
> Roberto
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:29:01 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights for Joe Baptista

Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> has made the following remark on the list:

 >When Jeff called you people in control of the GA horseshitter - I think he
 >was being rather kind.

This has been complained about to ga-abuse, first from William Walsh.
Consistent with previous rulings, this is considered inappropriate
behaviour for the GA list.

Since this is a second offense, I hereby declare that Joe Baptista has lost
his right to post to the GA list for 4 weeks - until Monday, April 17.
Decisions of the list monitor may be appealed to the GA chair.

                Harald Tveit Alvestrand
                GA list monitor

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:07:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights for Joe Baptista

It's time to go back to the old ways of doing business.  These rules are
nothing more then horsehit for the horseshitters.

I am a member here and I will not be silenced.

So consider this a test message from Joe Baptista

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> has made the following remark on the list:
> 
>  >When Jeff called you people in control of the GA horseshitter - I think he
>  >was being rather kind.
> 
> This has been complained about to ga-abuse, first from William Walsh.
> Consistent with previous rulings, this is considered inappropriate
> behaviour for the GA list.
> 
> Since this is a second offense, I hereby declare that Joe Baptista has lost
> his right to post to the GA list for 4 weeks - until Monday, April 17.
> Decisions of the list monitor may be appealed to the GA chair.
> 
>                 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>                 GA list monitor
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:08:27 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 09:00 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>On 20-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> > This is hindsight speaking. None of this was clear when IANA solicited or
> > received the applications. This only explains why the applications were 
> not
> > processed. It *DOES NOT* invalidate the application submission process, 
> nor
> > does it invalidate the applications.
>
>It most certainly does.   The submission process was under an 
>unsanctioned, and
>not authorized process.  Just because the applicants believed the process was
>valid (and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here) doesn't mean that the
>applications should have any standing in any future process.

Two things are important in this discussion. Reality and an accurate record 
of history.

I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the 
historical facts:

In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid 
out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the 
results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for 
some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process to 
establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs 
(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD 
applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at IANA 
(I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.

And here we are.

As Harald has correctly pointed out, these applications may or may not be 
granted. The point is that in order to grant or deny an application, it has 
to be processed first. One thing is certain, the applications cannot be 
ignored.

- --
Simon

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:16:01 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:08:27AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> Two things are important in this discussion. Reality and an accurate record 
> of history.
> 
> I was there. You weren't.

"I was there" != "What I say is an accurate reflection of history".

> You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the 
> historical facts:
> 
> In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid 
                     *********
Not fact.

> out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published the 
> results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org for 
> some inexplicable reason).

IANA published the collection of applications that people had sent in 
over a substantial period of time, whether on whim

> At the same time, IANA started the process to 
> establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs 
> (beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD 
> applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at IANA 
> (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
> 
> And here we are.
> 
> As Harald has correctly pointed out, these applications may or may not be 
> granted.

That's not what Harald pointed out, and that is not what the disclaimer
said.  It said "no conclusions had been reached yet" and "don't plan on
it". 

> The point is that in order to grant or deny an application, it has 
> to be processed first.

Nope.  "Not processed" == "implicit deny".

> One thing is certain, the applications cannot be 
> ignored.

Of course they can.  They almost certainly will be.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:27:03 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 11:58:45PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >and the fact that Chris Ambler's ".WEB" request was #3 in the list
> >for that particular TLD.....
> 
> As has been pointed out, the other two entries in that list
> were, according to IANA, not requests to run a registry, but
> suggestions that .web would be a good TLD to add. IOD's
> request was the first request to run the .web registry.
> I won't go over the rest, which has been hashed out more
> times than I know over the last 4+ years.

It's interesting to contrast the clear disclaimer in IANA's document 
with the "misleading" language in IODesign's web page 
(http://www.webtld.com/Information/faq.htm): 

  "Representatives of Image Online Design asked that IANA, the authority
  responsible for the Internet's domain name system, add Image Online
  Design's .WEB[tm] registry to the Internet's domain name servers.  In
  July, 1996, IANA agreed, and asked Image Online Design to bring its
  registry online, so it could be tested.  In essence, IANA wanted a
  "proof-of-concept" for a short time.  As things turned out, IANA chose
  not to honor its agreement..."

Despite numerous requests for concrete evidence of this supposed
"agreement", none has ever been produced.  Note that IANA has repeatedly
denied that such an agreement was ever made. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:42:06 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

>> You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by the
>> historical facts:
>>
>> In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
>                     *********
>Not fact.

Um, yes, fact. Please see the supporting documents in IOD's suit of 1997
for proof.

>> The point is that in order to grant or deny an application, it has
>> to be processed first.
>
>Nope.  "Not processed" == "implicit deny".

Nope. Not processed = implicit pass-the-buck.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:53:35 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

The agreement is part of the public record in IOD's 1997 suit. Please
refer to the declaration of Jon Postel to see that it was neither
denied nor corrected. Interesting in that Manning never filed one.
I wonder why? Perhaps he didn't want to lie?

Postel and Manning have been asked, on numerous occasions, to refute
the issue. Neither have. 

I invite you to have Bill Manning deny what is set forth below. If
you do that, you'll never hear from me on this point again.

Until then, just shut up.

Nice try at distraction, Kent, but it's getting you nowhere except
to make you sound like a sour old man.

- -- 
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 12:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Older registrations

On Sun, Mar 19, 2000 at 11:58:45PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >and the fact that Chris Ambler's ".WEB" request was #3 in the list
> >for that particular TLD.....
> 
> As has been pointed out, the other two entries in that list
> were, according to IANA, not requests to run a registry, but
> suggestions that .web would be a good TLD to add. IOD's
> request was the first request to run the .web registry.
> I won't go over the rest, which has been hashed out more
> times than I know over the last 4+ years.

It's interesting to contrast the clear disclaimer in IANA's document 
with the "misleading" language in IODesign's web page 
(http://www.webtld.com/Information/faq.htm): 

  "Representatives of Image Online Design asked that IANA, the authority
  responsible for the Internet's domain name system, add Image Online
  Design's .WEB[tm] registry to the Internet's domain name servers.  In
  July, 1996, IANA agreed, and asked Image Online Design to bring its
  registry online, so it could be tested.  In essence, IANA wanted a
  "proof-of-concept" for a short time.  As things turned out, IANA chose
  not to honor its agreement..."

Despite numerous requests for concrete evidence of this supposed
"agreement", none has ever been produced.  Note that IANA has repeatedly
denied that such an agreement was ever made. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:59:52 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 12:42 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines laid
> >                     *********
> >Not fact.
>
>Um, yes, fact. Please see the supporting documents in IOD's suit of 1997
>for proof.

They constitute claims, not proof.

They might be treated as proof if the judge agreed with IOD.

He didn't.  Strongly didn't.

At 12:53 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>The agreement is part of the public record in IOD's 1997 suit. Please
>refer to the declaration of Jon Postel to see that it was neither
>denied nor corrected. Interesting in that Manning never filed one.

It's interesting that you keep refusing to acknowledge how soundly the 
judge rejected IOD's position.

Many things are interesting.

But, no, you are not allowed to draw an affirmative conclusion from an 
omission.

Saying that Postel's statement represents support for IOD's claim that IANA 
gave IOD permission is simply making a false statement.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:11:36 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

>> >> In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
laid
>> >                     *********
>> >Not fact.
>>
>>Um, yes, fact. Please see the supporting documents in IOD's suit of 1997
>>for proof.
>
>They constitute claims, not proof.

That's right. And IANA made claims as well, none of which countered
our claims. Interesting, as that was the heart of our complaint.

>Saying that Postel's statement represents support for IOD's claim that IANA
>gave IOD permission is simply making a false statement.

Saying that you understand this issue is simply making a false
statement. The record speaks for itself, your interpretation
notwithstanding. We've argued this point many times over the
past 4 years, and it's never helped your case, Dave. Why do you
and Kent keep bringing it up? You're the only two who really
do that anymore. You just keep up the crusade, I'm sure it
fulfils some need in your life. Since we're doing just fine
now, I have no need to really get into it with you.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:57:10 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Postel and Manning have been asked, on numerous occasions, to refute
> the issue. Neither have. 

This issue really doesn't matter.  Neither one of them had the authority to
grant or add new gTLDs.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
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/

iD8DBQE41p628zLmV94Pz+IRApy+AJ9BJ0D2vxdeVTFWgF6nI3jMj9UivwCg+jxl
CUv+LlknBGTi9OY4RiEJ5Jk=
=+X++
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:59:07 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD, Brussels, 28 March

Peter,

>
>With appropriate consensus, ICANN itself could insert (or delete) 
entries in
>the Root without any direct relationship to ISO-3166.
>

Agree, in principle, although I believe that in practical terms ICANN 
will stick to ISO-3166: they will have enough trouble in delegating a 
handful of gTLDs to be willing to multiply it by changing the policy for
 the country codes.

>Also, seeking inclusion in ISO-3166 is an available option to any 
qualified
>body.
>

.. where "qualified" means that it fulfils the three conditions spelled
 out by ISO-3166/MA, or that it takes positive steps towards the 
establishment of autonomous "countryhood".

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #25
***********************