Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #37
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 30 2000           Volume 01 : Number 037

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

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:13:59 -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 12:30 AM 3/29/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> Let me waste one more futile effort on this... ;-)

Just more trying to get things to say something they don't.  Nothing there
legitimizes IANA having authority to add new gTLDs.   It really is a wasted
effort, Simon.   There is no document that gives IANA this authority.  

Again, just ask Richard Sexton, he seems to be well caught up on this issue.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44oAn8zLmV94Pz+IRAq6wAKCqptvpkAfImEiJGFgp0QBuzAI49gCfTW/I
ZOOxHp9WpI+v9814aPOEmqQ=
=FFsy
- -----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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:41:05 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 13:10 29/03/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
>Harald,
>
>Thank you for this clarification. To me this is quite clear, and the way to
>organize this is probably well-known to any organization with members:
>
>Organizations are members of DNSO. There is a membership database containing
>(at least) name of membership org.
>           address and other coordinates
>           constituency(ies)
>           name and coordinates of persons representing the org. in
>                    this context
>           One (and only one) of these persons should be ticked off as
>                    "voting person in the DNSO GA".
>
>Simple, isn't it?
>Did I forget something? What about individuals in the GA not representing an
>organization? Is "At-Large" for individuals and DNSO for organizations?
>

Yes you forgot something. The GA of the DNSO is composed of ALL individuals
(organized or dis-organized) that have an interest or a stake in the DNS.

The "DNSO for organizations" is represented by the Names Council.  The GA
is for those who feel that they should be represented on the NC.
If you send them away, the capture of the DNSO is sealed and the door is
shut. 
Neat.

The ICANN "at- large" membership , ahhh , now that is something else
altogether.

 

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:37:48 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

William X. Walsh wrote:

>.....   There is no document that gives IANA this authority.  
>

And even if, what a difference would it make it now?

IMHO, a couple of years ago USG has turned the page. By issuing the 
White Paper, and delegating power to ICANN, the framework of reference 
has changed.

Now, if somebody will ever add new gTLDs in the root, it will be ICANN 
(or at least somebody under supervision of ICANN). All the elements of 
this discussion will be useful only for litigation in court (supposing 
that somebody would be willing to bring "IANA" to court), but not at all
 to determine if and when and which gTLDs will be eventually added to 
the root by ICANN.

It will be more useful to define the GA position on the allocation of 
new gTLDs "in principle", considering that there are still roadblocks on
 the way (for instance, the question of the "famous marks").

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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 02:56:02 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

Joop wrote:
>
>Yes you forgot something. The GA of the DNSO is composed of ALL 
individuals
>(organized or dis-organized) that have an interest or a stake in the 
DNS.
>
>The "DNSO for organizations" is represented by the Names Council.  The 
GA
>is for those who feel that they should be represented on the NC.

I agree with Joop.
What is the need for a GA, if the members of it will only be 
organizations that participate already to the DNSO via the constituency/
ies they belong to?
The GA's added value is precisely the individuals (and, to a certain 
extent, also the organizations) that are not represented in the 
constituency system - and therefore not represented in the Name Council.

>If you send them away, the capture of the DNSO is sealed and the door 
is
>shut. 
>Neat.
>

I would not speak of "capture" because the interests represented by the 
constituencies are wide and diverse, and I do not see an obvious 
possibility of "capture" by a small subset of them.
What I see, though, is the real possibility of excluding a large part of
 stakeholders from the process.

>The ICANN "at- large" membership , ahhh , now that is something else
>altogether.
>

Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
 the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in 
participating in the DNSO/GA?

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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:57:15 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

On the other hand, it's very useful to determine the extent to which
pioneer registries relied upon the direction of IANA (e.g. CORE
and its IANA-signed MoU, perhaps). This would have direct
bearing on the application of a pioneer preference.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> >.....   There is no document that gives IANA this authority.  
> >
> 
> And even if, what a difference would it make it now?
> 
> IMHO, a couple of years ago USG has turned the page. By issuing the 
> White Paper, and delegating power to ICANN, the framework of reference 
> has changed.
> 
> Now, if somebody will ever add new gTLDs in the root, it will be ICANN 
> (or at least somebody under supervision of ICANN). All the elements of 
> this discussion will be useful only for litigation in court (supposing 
> that somebody would be willing to bring "IANA" to court), but not at all
>  to determine if and when and which gTLDs will be eventually added to 
> the root by ICANN.
> 
> It will be more useful to define the GA position on the allocation of 
> new gTLDs "in principle", considering that there are still roadblocks on
>  the way (for instance, the question of the "famous marks").
> 
> 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

- --
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 16:59:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> On the other hand, it's very useful to determine the extent to which
> pioneer registries relied upon the direction of IANA (e.g. CORE
> and its IANA-signed MoU, perhaps). This would have direct
> bearing on the application of a pioneer preference.

The point is moot.  Neither the Names Council or the ICANN board is likely to
do this no matter what we agree or don't agree to here. 

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44qba8zLmV94Pz+IRAkZkAKDUEbwr/eKYJUlszleHHIHSW0NiNwCfeaUW
KUHlnHqusN5A/b/JGsLnmMM=
=q5jo
- -----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 17:05:39 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > On the other hand, it's very useful to determine the extent to which
> > pioneer registries relied upon the direction of IANA (e.g. CORE
> > and its IANA-signed MoU, perhaps). This would have direct
> > bearing on the application of a pioneer preference.
>
> The point is moot.  Neither the Names Council or the ICANN board is likely
to
> do this no matter what we agree or don't agree to here.

And your insight into the thought process of ICANN comes from..... ?

Christopher

- --
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:12:35 +0930
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 11:17 PM 3/28/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>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)

Indeed.  Distributing mis-information is always helpful.

Please be clear that Richard is the owner of DNSO.COM, a site designed to 
confuse visitors into thinking that it is part of DNSO.ORG, and which 
provides web pages for sending mail that falsely purports to be from 
others.  Yes, Richard is an excellent source of information about the 
details of this history.

>>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".

What is most fascinating is that a) Jon virtually never made the kind of 
comment that Richard cites, about anyone; that is, Jon was extremely 
circumspect in his comments about others; and b) he certainly never made 
such comments to me, in spite of my periodically checking with him as the 
IAHC work progressed.

How curious that he would make such a strongly critical comment to a casual 
acquaintance and not to his appointee.

>>Also, Kashpureff acted with Jon's blessing. Jon told him to go ahead

Well, now, that claim is one of the best fantasies we have seen put forward 
on the list.

>>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

This is a good example of the carelessness that frequently shows up in 
these discussions.

The IAHC web page was hosted on a machine that used a co-location service 
in California.  The co-lo ISP did use alternic, but the machine doing the 
hosting did not.  It went directly through the IANA root and never touched 
the ISP's dns server.

>>gaining acceptance - a lot of places really were using it. Not *ONE*
>>problem was ever reported, so stuff your stability arguments.

Problems were frequently report, pretty much everyone saw an email reply 
effort fail.

>>GTE Federal Systems used it - until Bob Shaw form the ITU called

One back-room GTE researcher was trying it out on one machine.  That is 
rather different from "GTE was using it."

>>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

That's odd.  I thought my choice of vocabulary was pretty constrained and 
consistent.

I've primarily referred to it as a rogue effort from the beginning.

As to the continuing foolishness about special position for those who 
engaged in the rogue effort to replace the root -- mis-labeled as "pioneer" 
work -- let us remember the one, relevant legal review that has been 
made.  From <http://www.brandenburg.com/misc/iodesign-judge.html>, with 
IANA as one of the defendants and IODesign as the plaintiff:

>           What's most interesting about the breach of contract/estoppel 
> claim is that the claim made is that there was a contract entered into, 
> or that the Defendant should be estopped from denying that a contract was 
> entered into with an entity that the Plaintiff claims has no authority to 
> act.  And in drawing that conclusion, I don't mean to oversimplify and 
> sound cute about the inconsistency, but there's a real internal 
> inconsistency in the breach of contract position and again, the failure 
> to establish the elements of a contract.

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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:27:18 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> Please be clear that Richard is the owner of DNSO.COM, a site designed to 
> confuse visitors into thinking that it is part of DNSO.ORG, and which 
> provides web pages for sending mail that falsely purports to be from 
> others.  Yes, Richard is an excellent source of information about the 
> details of this history.

Please, let's keep our criticisms only where they are merited.  The DNSO.com
website does not do anything to confuse visitors into believing it is an
extension of the DNSO.ORG website.   It is clearly a work of satire and does
not attempt to deceive anyone.

I may have a couple gripes with Sexton, but let's not turn disagreements with
people into a wholesale license to create criticisms, they do not serve any of
our goals.

This discussion on the legitimization (or lack thereof) of the TLD applications
has mostly taken place between me on one side, and Ambler and Higgs on the
other.   This is pretty much a unique situation, because for the most part I
tend to agree with their positions and side with their arguments on most of the
substantive issues here and on other forums.     It is a good example of how
people can disagree on key issues, but still carry out a civil discourse.  So
far, since the DNSO has been operating under some semblance of civil discourse
rules, the discussions do seem to be a lot less uncivil.   

It's clear that rules such as these work.  I can think of a few other forums
that could learn from this lesson.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44ruG8zLmV94Pz+IRAke1AJ4hmO9J3wjos/b/gAcOcKx37T0ezwCePAW8
Bkt3edzfG7UAHNiXWzTTTDo=
=0ZzR
- -----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 19:52:46 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 11:12 AM 3/30/00 +0930, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 11:17 PM 3/28/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>>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)
>
>What is most fascinating is that a) Jon virtually never made the kind of 
>comment that Richard cites, about anyone; that is, Jon was extremely 
>circumspect in his comments about others; and b) he certainly never made 
>such comments to me, in spite of my periodically checking with him as the 
>IAHC work progressed.
>
>How curious that he would make such a strongly critical comment to a 
>casual acquaintance and not to his appointee.

I had lunch with Jon just a few weeks before he died. You'd be surprised at 
what was said. Like you said - "virtually never". ;-)

>>>So not only did Jon encourage the development of an alternative root
>>>system, he pointed Wall St. poeple at him.

I can vouch for Jon's pointing Eugene towards Wall Street (from 
conversations I had with both Jon and Eugene). It really surprised me too. 
I don't think it warrants further discussion.

>>>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
>
>The IAHC web page was hosted on a machine that used a co-location service 
>in California.  The co-lo ISP did use alternic, but the machine doing the 
>hosting did not.  It went directly through the IANA root and never touched 
>the ISP's dns server.

There were subscriptions to iahc-discuss from "@alter.nic" addresses. 
"[email-masked]" on "mail.proper.com" seemed quite happy to process 
them, and they were received by the alt.root machines.

Also, eDNS, ORSC, and other alternate roots have been quite happy to carry 
the five undisputed IAHC TLDs - per request from some CORE folk for testing 
purposes. I think they're still being carried by today's alt.roots. These 
alt.roots have been more than willing to co-operate with the IAHC in the 
absence of territorial disputes.

>>>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
>
>That's odd.  I thought my choice of vocabulary was pretty constrained and 
>consistent.
>
>I've primarily referred to it as a rogue effort from the beginning.

And therein lies the problem. A die-hard refusal on your part to work with 
others in the newdom community, especially prior work that has had direct 
personal guidance from IANA staff, which you purported to represent.

This is exactly what has caused the fragmentation between the pre-IAHC and 
post-IAHC work which we are *ALL* (almost all) trying to mend.

Roberto - here is one (of many) answers to the question of "Why?" Thanks 
for the example, Dave.

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds 
discuss people, and Fools argue.

- --
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 18:56:45 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 04:59 PM 3/29/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > On the other hand, it's very useful to determine the extent to which
> > pioneer registries relied upon the direction of IANA (e.g. CORE
> > and its IANA-signed MoU, perhaps). This would have direct
> > bearing on the application of a pioneer preference.
>
>The point is moot.  Neither the Names Council or the ICANN board is likely to
>do this no matter what we agree or don't agree to here.

Let the Names Council or ICANN board decide for themselves after evaluating 
all the facts. That is, if they are allowed access to those facts.

Arguing here is pointless and counter productive. ;-)

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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:59:32 +0930
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 02:56 30.03.00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
>What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
>What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
>  the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in
>participating in the DNSO/GA?

In my (biased) opinion, the At Large is beyond our control, and it is 
impossible for us to predict what the At Large is going to be.

I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard 
there too), but that the opposite is unlikely, if only because the GA does 
not have the wish or the means to have membership drives.

An At-Large member is expected to vote for representatives who choose 
candidates to the ICANN board once a year or so. A GA member is (I think) 
expected to take a position on various issues brought to a GA vote - 
probably on the order of magnitude of once a month or so.

My guess.

                        Harald

- --
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 23:52:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Harald and all assembly members,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 02:56 30.03.00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Joop identifies a point that should be discussed, IMHO.
> >What will be the relationship btw. GA and @large?
> >What will be the composition of the @large, and is there an overlap with
> >  the GA? What part of the @large-Members will be interested in
> >participating in the DNSO/GA?
>
> In my (biased) opinion, the At Large is beyond our control, and it is
> impossible for us to predict what the At Large is going to be.

  Presently this seems to definitely be the case unfortunately.  The members
of the AT-Large will have to themselves determine what it will be or
become.  The sooner the better most likely.  Should the ICANN board
interfere in this, it would not booed well for ICANN as a whole if pretty
short order.

>
>
> I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard
> there too), but that the opposite is unlikely, if only because the GA does
> not have the wish or the means to have membership drives.

  I don't know that you or anyone can say what the GA wishes now or
in any given point in time.  As to the means, it is true that at this juncture

that the GA doesn't not have the means to have membership drives, but could
with a little thinking and hard driving work.

>
>
> An At-Large member is expected to vote for representatives who choose
> candidates to the ICANN board once a year or so.

  Well this only PART of what the At-Large is supposed to be expected to
do, but certainly not all.

> A GA member is (I think)
> expected to take a position on various issues brought to a GA vote -
> probably on the order of magnitude of once a month or so.

  Indeed at least once a month maybe more frequent than that...

>
>
> My guess.
>
>                         Harald
>
> --
> 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

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 23:49:00 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

I recalled that there was a story and interview with Jon a couple
of years back in which the question at hand was answered, by Jon.

Took me a while, but I found it.

=== begin archive ===

Industry asks: Who is Jon Postel?

By Todd Wallack and Ellen Messmer
Network World, 4/21/97

In the murky world of Internet governance, few organizations play as
critical a role as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

 IANA is ultimately responsible for assigning Internet addresses throughout
the world. It is IANA that assigns all top-level domains. And it is IANA
that doles out IP numbers to registries, which in turn issue them to
Internet service providers and users.

The Defense Department said it gave IANA $450,000 in late 1995 and has given
it millions over the years. NSI said it pays Postel $240,000 a year to
manage the .us domain, a country specific code that Postel for some reason
registered under his name and ISI's.

''Why he did that was never ex plained,'' said Tony Rutkowski, a former
executive director of the Internet Society and now a strong advocate for
reform. ''But it was a revenue opportunity for ISI.''

Postel denied anything sinister was involved. He said the university simply
''volunteered'' to handle the domain in 1986 and has been doing so ever
since. The money, he said, just covers expenses.

''The single point of authority is the IANA ... Dr. Jon Postel,'' said Don
Telage, NSI president. ''This has worked well, but we need to rethink the
situation.''

Though reluctant to talk about the details, Postel confirmed he is finally
talking to USC, the Defense Department, registries and Internet
organizations about turning IANA into a more formal organization. He said he
started the work in March, when the Defense Department indicated it planned
to stop funding IANA. He hopes to complete it by June.

To truly understand IANA, Postel said it is important to consider how the
Internet evolved - going back to the beginning of the Advanced Research
Projects Agency Network (ARPANet) in 1969.

At the time, the 'Net was run by a collegial group of researchers and funded
by the Defense Department. Postel even went to the same high school as
Vinton Cerf, who created TCP, and another Interet pioneer, Steve Crocker.

At the age of just 25, Postel got involved in running the Network Management
Center, which conducted performance tests and analysis on the earliest roots
of ARPANet. Since then, Postel has taken on more duties and become one of
the most venerated members of the Internet elite.

He has been the request for comment (RFC) editor for a quarter of a century.
He was the one who made sure every segment of the net work had a unique
identifier. In fact, he is mentioned at least 17 times in a book on the
origins of the Internet: Where the Wizards Sleep.

''IANA is just a name we invented in the '80s to describe this work,'' said
Postel, who sports a long white beard, ponytail and sandals.

Although Postel is ostensibly in charge of all domain names and IP numbers,
he says these duties do not take much time. Now and then, he simply
allocates a new block of IP numbers to a registry or helps registries with
special requests. But the registries actually handle all the day-to-day
details on their own.

- --
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 23:45:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> I recalled that there was a story and interview with Jon a couple
> of years back in which the question at hand was answered, by Jon.
> 
> Took me a while, but I found it.

But it doesn't really answer the question at all.  Interesting reading though. 

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44wYa8zLmV94Pz+IRAu6+AJ4vyhfjvlRixuRVgmA0lWDoPMrKlQCg3zkc
1Wmn4OKnwc5OD0IgExomfZ4=
=b3LI
- -----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 23:55:16 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

What?! Doesn't answer the question?!

It specifically has Jon Postel talking about how his job is
to assign domain identifiers!

Was he LYING?!

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 11:46 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> I recalled that there was a story and interview with Jon a couple
> of years back in which the question at hand was answered, by Jon.
>
> Took me a while, but I found it.

But it doesn't really answer the question at all.  Interesting reading
though.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44wYa8zLmV94Pz+IRAu6+AJ4vyhfjvlRixuRVgmA0lWDoPMrKlQCg3zkc
1Wmn4OKnwc5OD0IgExomfZ4=
=b3LI
- -----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 23:54:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> What?! Doesn't answer the question?!
> 
> It specifically has Jon Postel talking about how his job is
> to assign domain identifiers!

Jon Postel can say anything.   Did Jon believe he had the authority? Maybe. 
Did the CORE registrars believe he had the authority to give them the
assurances he gave them?  Maybe. (Well, ok a definite yes from the ones I have
spoken with).  

And his answer is not inconsistent with anything I have said.  Part of his job
was the assign domain identifiers, the ccTLD identifiers.   This doesn't answer
the question at all, Chris.  

But like I said, it was interesting.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44wg28zLmV94Pz+IRAjLTAJ0VdN409ntlaTz7HQxvB5ptuHJ7yQCcD4A8
MY+rFQl8HpbGW97Y94IWIt8=
=tPvV
- -----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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:48:11 +0930
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 07:52 PM 3/29/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>There were subscriptions to iahc-discuss from "@alter.nic" addresses. 
>"[email-masked]" on "mail.proper.com" seemed quite happy to process 
>them, and they were received by the alt.root machines.

Since I co-administered that mailing list -- remember I co-founded the IMC 
- -- I can assure you that the non-IANA tld-based addresses were not allowed 
to remain in the mailing list.

Yes, one or more was auto-subscribed into the list.  However they didn't 
work, instead just generating a bounce message for every posting.  So they 
were as quickly removed.

>>>>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
>>
>>That's odd.  I thought my choice of vocabulary was pretty constrained and 
>>consistent.
>>
>>I've primarily referred to it as a rogue effort from the beginning.
>
>And therein lies the problem. A die-hard refusal on your part to work with 
>others in the newdom community, especially prior work that has had direct 
>personal guidance from IANA staff, which you purported to represent.
>This is exactly what has caused the fragmentation between the pre-IAHC and 
>post-IAHC work which we are *ALL* (almost all) trying to mend.
>Roberto - here is one (of many) answers to the question of "Why?" Thanks 
>for the example, Dave.

Simon, by any chance did you notice how smoothly you moved from making an 
incorrect assertion, to using the response about its falseness for 
generating an-related claim attack?

This makes other claims about lunches and statements of support wonderfully 
credible.

Thank YOU.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #37
***********************