Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #35
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, March 29 2000          Volume 01 : Number 035

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

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:26:37 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying that Chris is
either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?

I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a different perspctive.
I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to IANA, just like Chris
said. Although, the only one that might still have written proof is Simon.
I'm on about my fifth workstation since then and bazillionth hard drive,
sometimes things get lost over time and sometimes they are hard to find.
Personally I have over 50K files, over 96 GB, on six servers, some of them
go back to 1984 (from FidoNet NET_DEV, so we know that I'm older than dirt
<sigh>, I think that Simon's older than me, but Stef's older than all of us
<grin>).

I think that you can find some of the info in the ORSC archives. However, I
think that you are taking the challenge for proof to absurd heights. This is
something D'Crock would do. You might also try looking into the newdom
archives. I have a copy that I can send to you. Last Summer, I converted
from Eudora to Outlook. I never converted the messagebase, however, I can
send you the whole thing, if you want to chew it yourself, I don't have the
time. It contains, DOMAIN-POLICY, ORSC, IFWP and other lists, back to 1996.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:23 PM
> To: Christopher Ambler
> Cc: [email-masked]; Simon Higgs
> Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>
> > How many times do you have to be told that YOU ARE WRONG?
>
> As many times as people continue to make claims that are not
> backed up by the
> facts, and for which there is absolutely no proof.  You can
> tell me that all
> you want, but absent the facts and proof to back it up, its
> just more hot air
> like everything else on this thread.
>
> > Correct, for what good it does. They said, "take the info,
> work on the
> > process,
> > but don't move without us." So they did all of the above.
> I'm only concerned
> > with
> > the "take the info" part. The rest is history.
>
> The big thing missing here, Chris, is proof.
>
> NSI asking NSF what to do with these infernal applications,
> and NSF telling
> them to forward them to IANA, does not mean that NSF
> sanctioned it.  It merely
> means that NSF was letting them do their little thing, but
> was not endorsing it
> or granting any official recognition or sanction to it.
>
> Provide proof that IANA had the authority and official
> santion to create a
> process for new gTLDs from the NSF.  Otherwise, this entire
> issue is over.
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE44Uz68zLmV94Pz+IRAi0OAKDxvXh2qpHtVZONCMttnVga0ue0LgCg7pv2
> iZSePL4imlCYnz0wJmAGgsw=
> =FEZt
> -----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
>

- --
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:26:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying that Chris is
> either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?
> 
> I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a different perspctive.
> I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to IANA, just like Chris
> said. Although, the only one that might still have written proof is Simon.

Where are the documents, Roeland?   I'll settle for references to real official
documents.  That's really not too much to ask, is it? 

> I think that you can find some of the info in the ORSC archives. However, I
> think that you are taking the challenge for proof to absurd heights. This is

The ORSC archives contain the ORSC's take on the issue, which is far from the
actual factual accounting of what happened, and the real, not presumed,
authority behind it.

Mailing lists are not documents that prove authority, they only present the
opinions of the members of those lists.  When I see a document from the NSF
that specifically states that IANA had the authority to introduce new gTLDS
(something even Sexton has recently said they didn't have on a usenet
discussion with Jon Postel's brother) I will be satisified.

Anything else is just more presumption, which is what led to these problems to
begin with.  

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

iD8DBQE44aIW8zLmV94Pz+IRAp0DAKCUeSXH3DSyxUhcIxTJ3wlm5C/DRwCg0x1Q
3I7z+3t8C7F8L02Lh2jzro8=
=zio/
- -----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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:45:47 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

In this particulat case, what you want is only available via FOIA request
against the NSF, or DOC/NTIA. Do you want to foot the bill?

As far as ORSC files go, I have my own copies. How can they be slanted? At
the time, no particular weight was given to the data.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:27 PM
> To: Roeland M. J. Meyer
> Cc: Simon Higgs; [email-masked]; Christopher Ambler
> Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> > William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying
> that Chris is
> > either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?
> >
> > I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a
> different perspctive.
> > I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to
> IANA, just like Chris
> > said. Although, the only one that might still have written
> proof is Simon.
>
> Where are the documents, Roeland?   I'll settle for
> references to real official
> documents.  That's really not too much to ask, is it?
>
> > I think that you can find some of the info in the ORSC
> archives. However, I
> > think that you are taking the challenge for proof to absurd
> heights. This is
>
> The ORSC archives contain the ORSC's take on the issue, which
> is far from the
> actual factual accounting of what happened, and the real, not
> presumed,
> authority behind it.
>
> Mailing lists are not documents that prove authority, they
> only present the
> opinions of the members of those lists.  When I see a
> document from the NSF
> that specifically states that IANA had the authority to
> introduce new gTLDS
> (something even Sexton has recently said they didn't have on a usenet
> discussion with Jon Postel's brother) I will be satisified.
>
> Anything else is just more presumption, which is what led to
> these problems to
> begin with.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE44aIW8zLmV94Pz+IRAp0DAKCUeSXH3DSyxUhcIxTJ3wlm5C/DRwCg0x1Q
> 3I7z+3t8C7F8L02Lh2jzro8=
> =zio/
> -----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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:48:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

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

On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> In this particulat case, what you want is only available via FOIA request
> against the NSF, or DOC/NTIA. Do you want to foot the bill?

Won't waste my time or money.  If such a document existed, it would have been
produced by now, especially with some of the lawsuits that have happened and
are happening.  Such a document would a powerful piece of evidence, and if it
existed we would all know about it by now.

Everyone claims IANA had the authority, but no one can point to any agreement,
contract or other document that gives them that authority.  It is all based on
the presumption that IANA could claim the authority on its own since no other
process existed at the time.   This logic is very flawed.

Again, ask Sexton, Roeland.  He recently stated this very thing on a usenet
discussion with Jon Postel's brother.  I would be happy to provide URLs at
deja.com (no sarcasm, I know you are busy and I am there every day, so if you
want them, I'd be happy to email the thread URL to you).

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

iD8DBQE44adL8zLmV94Pz+IRAgv2AKDFxe8E9umEB4AALR++R3mp4WH/fQCg5VMI
c05dskIBasAYU/Kwdb9fo5E=
=KSBc
- -----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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:42:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Updated DNS Quotes file

All assembly members,

  Some interesting history on alternitive Domain names from Jon Postel..

=========================

Subject:
          [IFWP] Updated DNS Quotes file
     Date:
          Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:41:27 -0500 (EST)
     From:
          "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
 Reply-To:
          [email-masked]
       To:
          [email-masked]
      CC:
          [email-masked]

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 12:40:30 -0700
From: Jon Postel
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ISOC Statement on Domain Name Fees

Rick:

I think this introduction of charging by the Intenic for domain
registrations is sufficient cause to take steps to set up a small
number of alternate top level domains managed by other registration
centers.

I'd like to see some competition between registration services to
encourage good service at low prices.

I do think we need to proceed with some care, to understand what are
the requirements and responsibilities of these service centers, what
informatrion they have to provide to the community, what oversight they
are subject to and by whom, etc.

I'd be happy if you could help me come up with a plan for this.

- --jon

====================================================================

From: "Diane M Boling"
Subject: Re: problem with mx
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:31:38 -0500

Sorry to hear about Postel losing funding.  NOT...

At Your Name Service,
                                   Diane M Boling
                                   [email-masked]

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:15:16 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 02:01 PM 3/27/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>On 27-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > There is every reason to recognize those. If for no other reason, then
> > Jon Postel caused a number of individuals and companies to spend
> > good resources in time and money based on his request to show working
> > code previous to process.
>
>All I have to say to this is that you should have made sure that he indeed had
>the authority he was claiming to have.

Jon Postel did have the authority to add new TLDs to the root. The evidence 
is sitting in the root zone right now. His actions were, specifically, as 
head of IANA & contracted to the NSF/USG, to establish the process and 
authority to introduce new TLDs, include the community by garnering 
consensus on how to add non-ccTLDs to the root, and publish the results as 
one or more Internet Drafts. This he did with full authority of the IAB, 
IETF, and IANA, backed up by an NSF agreement.

>You shouldn't get any higher standing
>at the expense of those who have followed the authorized process because of
>Dr. Postel's mistakes.  Why should they be penalized for Dr. Postel's false
>actions?  (Presuming of course that these actions can be laid at his feet,
>which I am not sure I concede right now).

I would strongly suggest that you not malign the character of the deceased. 
In any case, no-one is asking for a higher standing than others. All that 
is being asked is to continue what was started under IANA's guidance, and 
to participate in the current process. This not an unreasonable request. 
Unreasonable is being denied the chance to contribute today (with the 
lessons learnt under the Postel drafts in hindsight, as well as on the 
other side of the camp during the IAHC attempt).

> > We're not talking about grandfathering here, we're talking about simply
> > recognizing and acknowledging the facts of history.
>
>The history bears out that this process was as unauthorized as the IAHC 
>effort.

Well... today CORE (your "unauthorized registrars") act as registrars, so 
why not let the original TLD applicants act as registries to the 
registrars? Economically this is a very sound move as it creates growth for 
everyone involved, and provides momentum for ICANN.

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently.

- --
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:39 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 10:27 PM
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> > William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying
> that Chris is
> > either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?
> >
> > I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a
> different perspctive.
> > I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to
> IANA, just like Chris
> > said. Although, the only one that might still have written
> proof is Simon.
>
> Where are the documents, Roeland?   I'll settle for
> references to real official
> documents.  That's really not too much to ask, is it?

Actually, it is. The NSF was woefully informal. Scientists are above petty
bureaucracy and highly intolerant of it, remember? The NSF's ineptness is
[one of] the reasons that the Internet was taken away from them. Do you
remember that bit about the infrastructure development surcharge, that NSF
directed NSI to take? That wasn't documented real well either. The NSF was
real bad about not leaving audit-trail. Geez, they even did a lot of pure
verbal stuff.<sigh> Most of the evidence that I have was indirect, mainly
folks bitching about it after the fact.

- --
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:17:04 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 03:49 PM 3/28/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>The circle is broken, Simon.  The IANA did not have this authority.  Ask 
>Sexton
>for some clarification, he had an interesting exchange with Jon Postel's
>brother on a usenet newsgroup about this very subject recently.

Since you have requested some clarification from Richard, and Richard has 
requested I forward his text (unedited) in response to Dave Crocker's 
similarly incorrect assumption, it is now appropriate that I post it here. 
Also note that the IAHC mailing list archives are now conveniently missing.

I apologize to Harald & Elisabeth for the diversion from GA business.

>X-Sender: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked], undisclosed recipients
>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:19:46 -0500 (EST)
>
>(Feel free to redistribute this anywhere, Simon)
>
> >>The rogue effort likes to claim it worked under IANA permission.  It
> >>didn't and would never be able to prove that it did, to satisfy a
> >>judge.  We have one, relevant legal evaluation pertaining to this realm
> >>and I posted the most cogent statements from the judge's opinion.
> >
> >Let me stand in front of a judge, and let the judge decide. It's
> >interesting to note that the IAHC went way out of it's way to prevent my
> >public testimony in the past. A clever technique of subpoenaing me and then
> >refusing to take my deposition. I wonder why that was?
>
>I'd like to add I spoke to Jon Postel in person, only once, in Geneva
>in 1998. We made idle chit chat for a few minutes then I asked him
>"Jon, what the HELL were you thinking putting Metzger and Crocker
>on the IHAC committee".
>
>His answer, verbatim (you don't forget things like this) was "Well,
>you know they wern't my first choices but the other people I asked
>had no time or recused themseleves for ethical reasons so I was left
>with Dave and Perry.
>
>Perry was just a mistake. Dave is usually pretty good at keeping
>things on a technical level, but his outside communication was so bad
>it was a disaster. It was a istake and I'm really sorry it happened".
>
>John died a little over a year later, sadly, so it would be my word
>against his non-word if it were not for the fact there was a witness. I
>swear under penalty of purjery this is true and we can give this
>deposition in court if need be.
>
>Jon was hopeful about the pre IAHC new domain working group
>and I got to explain to him in Geneva some of the concept to him
>he'd not been able to hear above the hub bub of the know-it-all
>IAHC committee.
>
>Again, his exact words were "Huh, that's pretty good, I hadn't
>thought of that". In an internet of yore I'd just say what those ideas
>were, but in this day and age I see no point in giving say, register.com
>the idea. Welcome to the 21st century commercial Internet; not to
>worry though it's documented on the net and if you were in Higgs
>shared registry working group you already know what it is.
>
>Also, Kashpureff acted with Jon's blessing. Jon told him to go ahead
>to try it. When Gerry Gorman (who founded Globecomm/iname/mail.com)
>called Jon and asked about new domains, and that they were looking
>to invest, Jon turned them onto Kashpureff.
>
>So not only did Jon encourage the development of an alternative root
>system, he pointed Wall St. poeple at him. Big ISP's like best.com
>were using it, the ISP I use up here in the country was using it before
>I ever moved here or ever talked to them. Even the IAHC used
>AlterNIC roots[2], albeit unwittingly, but that's how much it was
>gaining acceptance - a lot of places really were using it. Not *ONE*
>problem was ever reported, so stuff your stability arguments.
>
>GTE Federal Systems used it - until Bob Shaw form the ITU called
>them and pulled the [2] "This is the International Telecommunications
>Union calling from Geneva" trick and asked them to put it back and
>oh, please don't ever tell anybody I called and asked you to do this.
>
>It's not like today when you're accused of being a nut a rogue, a
>crazy or a non-person; back then there was a heady air of
>entranpenurial innovation and the sense you were doing something
>good for the community and had the blessing ot a net.deity.
>
>Over the years, the de facto new domains working group has been
>called every name in the book by Crocker and his ilk, and you can't
>do anything about that. You have to just wait it out. At some point
>everybody will know all the facts and will have met all the poeple and
>there will be no disguising the truth.
>
>[1] http://www.dnso.com/quotes/#iahc
>
>[2] An alta vista search yields:
>
>http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?sc=on&hl=on&q=%2Bdomain+%2BGTE+%2BFederal+%2BSystems+%2Bsexton&kl=XX&pg=q
>
>
>   1. IAHC-gate
>        Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread 
> Index]
>        IAHC-gate. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 02:57:03 -0500 (EST) From: 
> "Richard J....
>        URL: www.iahc.org/iahc-discuss/02675.html
>        Last modified on: 21-Jan-1999 - 10K bytes - in English
>        [ Translate ] [ More pages from this site ] [Related pages ]
>
>But gets:
>
> >Not Found
> >
> >The requested URL /iahc-discuss/02675.html was not found on this server.
> >
> >
> >Apache/1.3.7-dev Server at www.iahc.org Port 80
>
>Revisionism. However it's sfaely stored here:
>http://www.newdom.com/archive/newdom3/1610.txt
>
>
>Postscript: I have no doubt that Dave Crocker will now
>go into one of his "this is not substantive, productive
>or helpful" tirades. But it is important. People are on
>the verge of making some important decisions and
>whether they're going to be right or wrong, they're
>better off making informed decisions.
>--
>[email-masked]        [email-masked]       http://www.dnso.com
>It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR

- --
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:16:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 29-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 02:01 PM 3/27/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>On 27-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > There is every reason to recognize those. If for no other reason, then
>> > Jon Postel caused a number of individuals and companies to spend
>> > good resources in time and money based on his request to show working
>> > code previous to process.
>>
>>All I have to say to this is that you should have made sure that he indeed
>>had
>>the authority he was claiming to have.
> 
> Jon Postel did have the authority to add new TLDs to the root. The evidence 
> is sitting in the root zone right now. His actions were, specifically, as 
> head of IANA & contracted to the NSF/USG, to establish the process and 

His authority existed solely with regard to ccTLDs.  NSF's actions make this
clear.  Provide documentary evidence to back up your claims, or just admit you
are wrong.

Bottom line.  Where did the authority come from, and where is the documentation?

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

iD8DBQE44a3g8zLmV94Pz+IRAo39AJ93I2FIzW5VpcHdV2NePeQzGIt+oACghCZ6
8X5j5Oi+BaQZdVVCHsK/sLc=
=7WN9
- -----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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:27:11 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

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

On 29-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 03:49 PM 3/28/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>The circle is broken, Simon.  The IANA did not have this authority.  Ask 
>>Sexton
>>for some clarification, he had an interesting exchange with Jon Postel's
>>brother on a usenet newsgroup about this very subject recently.
> 
> Since you have requested some clarification from Richard, and Richard has 
> requested I forward his text (unedited) in response to Dave Crocker's 
> similarly incorrect assumption, it is now appropriate that I post it here. 
> Also note that the IAHC mailing list archives are now conveniently missing.
> 
> I apologize to Harald & Elisabeth for the diversion from GA business.

Simon, other than Jon saying or alluding that he had this authority, do you
have documentation that he actually DID have that authority?  Where is this
documentation (if it exists) and can you provide a reference for it?  If not,
then this discussion is really moot.

An interesting exchange between Sexton and Tom Postel on usenet recently.  

http://x29.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=596107297.1&mhitnum=20&CONTEXT=
954314593.320208902
(If you haven't been to deja.com recently, you might have to click the continue
link to get the message, the thread is under the message if you want to read
the full thread, it is somewhat interesting).

>> Forum: net.internet.dns.policy
 >> Thread: So.... 
 >> Message 21 of 35

 Subject:
        Re: So....
 Date:
        03/11/2000
 Author:
        Richard J. Sexton <[email-masked]>

In article <[email-masked]>,
 T. Postel <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >Perhaps cooperation is too strong. You say Dave Holtzman knew before the
fact. 
 >Yet it NSI didn't start complaining for a few days. Maybe compliant?
  
 It wasn't a few days. They wern't complainting, they merely advised the poeple
thet had a contract to administer the legacy roots for that half the
 root servers were no longer slaved to the A root.
  
 >As advisor to the prez, Ira Magaziner could yell at anybody he wanted, I
don't 
 >think that was his style, however. By the time Ira got in touch with Jon the 
 >test had been completed, and Jon's attorney had chapter and verse on the
chain 
 >of command for the root servers. I think Magaziner was surprised that 
 >the authority was Jon.
  
 I'm sorry, Jon never had that authority. If he did he could have added tlds to
the root servers or moved the A root from NSI, but he couldn't. 
  
 There are contracts that show who has operaitonal and editorial
 responsability for the legacy root zone. The US Government, first the NSF and
now the DOC has always had the final authority.
  
 >I didn't mean to imply that the agreement between Commerce and NSI was not
going 
 >to be renewed, or that Jon didn't know. There was discussion at the time over 
 >when is the right time to conduct this test. A week or two before it could be 
 >necessary, or a week after it is moot. Jon thought he'd get less flak if he
ran 
 >the test right before the agreement was to end.
  
 It was never a test. For twop years the plan had been to take the A root from
NSI.
  
 Neither you or I were there. Dave Holtzman was, he had operational
responasbility for the root servers and I'm relaying what he told me.
 Anybody can ask him: [email-masked].
  
 With respect,
  
 -- 
 Richard Sexton  |  [email-masked]  | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
 http://killifish.vrx.net      http://www.mbz.org       http://www.dnso.com
 Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada,  70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD   +1 (613) 473-1719
- - --------------------------

So, please, Simon, provide documentation to back up your claims, that show that
IANA had the authority to introduce new gTLDs, or stop trying to twist Jon's
words into some presumption of authority that didn't exist.

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

iD8DBQE44bBP8zLmV94Pz+IRAut2AKC+yTDEONnLgyEUMtw0L+mbEHBZfQCfXVLw
OAxiJJm13m/UE4najX+iCuc=
=Fl71
- -----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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:17:37 +0930
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Arguments about history falsification

I have had complaints from more than one participant that statements have
been made on the list that, when parsed semantically, amount to claiming
that other participants are lying about past history.

This includes sentences like "[description] which is far from the
actual factual accounting of what happened", "attempt to engage in revisionist
history making", "falls into the camp of nicely written propaganda" and others.

This is not in the spirit of polite discussion, and does not contribute in
a good way to getting business done on this list.

I suggest that all participants in this discussion do the following:

1) Make sure your version of historic events is written down on a Web page
    somewhere.

2) Whenever someone argues a point of history you don't agree with, limit
    your rebuttal to "I do not believe this is correct. See my Web page
    at <xxxx>".

3) DO NOT continue the argument on the GA list.

If you wish to discuss the accuracy of your respective webpages further,
I am sure there are plenty of other forums you can use for that.

Regards,

                Harald T. Alvestrand
                 List monitor

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:44:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

William and all assembly members,

  I believe that there was a memorandum from the NSF or an official of the
NSF to be more precise that was posted in it's entirety on the IAHC list
at one point.  I know I have one from Jon Postel in my archives, as well
as a fax copy.  Hence, though I dislike disagreeing with Richard, I think
he is mistaken on this fine point.

  As to weather E-Mails are official documents, the supreme court have
excepted them as evidence as official documents in many many cases the least
of which is not the Microsoft case with respect to Bill Gates E-Mails.  Given
this well documented fact, I am again quite clearly stating that WXW has again
misstated what is legally considered "Official DOcuments" and what is not.  Nothing

new here, as we all here know as WXW has made suck inane statements of this
nature in the past on so many occasions that I couldn't began to estimate
the number...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> > William, you want proof from an eye witness? Are you saying that Chris is
> > either lieing or doesn't remember? What level of proof do you want?
> >
> > I remember the same things as Chris and Simon, from a different perspctive.
> > I know for fact that NSF handed the whole mess over to IANA, just like Chris
> > said. Although, the only one that might still have written proof is Simon.
>
> Where are the documents, Roeland?   I'll settle for references to real official
> documents.  That's really not too much to ask, is it?
>
> > I think that you can find some of the info in the ORSC archives. However, I
> > think that you are taking the challenge for proof to absurd heights. This is
>
> The ORSC archives contain the ORSC's take on the issue, which is far from the
> actual factual accounting of what happened, and the real, not presumed,
> authority behind it.
>
> Mailing lists are not documents that prove authority, they only present the
> opinions of the members of those lists.  When I see a document from the NSF
> that specifically states that IANA had the authority to introduce new gTLDS
> (something even Sexton has recently said they didn't have on a usenet
> discussion with Jon Postel's brother) I will be satisified.
>
> Anything else is just more presumption, which is what led to these problems to
> begin with.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE44aIW8zLmV94Pz+IRAp0DAKCUeSXH3DSyxUhcIxTJ3wlm5C/DRwCg0x1Q
> 3I7z+3t8C7F8L02Lh2jzro8=
> =zio/
> -----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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:50:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

William and all assembly members,

  As I stated in a just previous post on this thread regarding such a document,
I know that a memorandum does exist and was posted on the old IAHC
list.  This may not be considered a "Official Document" by some.  The DOJ also
has a copy as I sent it to them long ago now as well.  However I don't believe
it would be a very powerful piece of evidence, as the facts of the relationship
between the IANA and NSF are generally known and well documented in
several E-Mail list archives already.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> > In this particulat case, what you want is only available via FOIA request
> > against the NSF, or DOC/NTIA. Do you want to foot the bill?
>
> Won't waste my time or money.  If such a document existed, it would have been
> produced by now, especially with some of the lawsuits that have happened and
> are happening.  Such a document would a powerful piece of evidence, and if it
> existed we would all know about it by now.
>
> Everyone claims IANA had the authority, but no one can point to any agreement,
> contract or other document that gives them that authority.  It is all based on
> the presumption that IANA could claim the authority on its own since no other
> process existed at the time.   This logic is very flawed.
>
> Again, ask Sexton, Roeland.  He recently stated this very thing on a usenet
> discussion with Jon Postel's brother.  I would be happy to provide URLs at
> deja.com (no sarcasm, I know you are busy and I am there every day, so if you
> want them, I'd be happy to email the thread URL to you).
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE44adL8zLmV94Pz+IRAgv2AKDFxe8E9umEB4AALR++R3mp4WH/fQCg5VMI
> c05dskIBasAYU/Kwdb9fo5E=
> =KSBc
> -----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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #35
***********************