Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #38
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 30 2000           Volume 01 : Number 038

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:34:26 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations

At 05:48 PM 3/30/00 +0930, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 07:52 PM 3/29/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>>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.
>
>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?

Nope. It wasn't an attack at all. It is an observation of one IAHC-member's 
behaviour towards the pre-IAHC community in the last five years, and the 
resulting consequences to the affected communities.

You *HAVE* admitted to it after all.

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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:34:15 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 01:59 PM 3/30/00 +0930, 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.
>
>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.

Does this mean that membership registrations may be duplicated (At Large is 
a separate member registration from GA)?

Surely all members should have a unique identifier as an At Large ICANN 
member, and then attributes are assigned to that identifier to identify the 
membership groups/organizations they subscribe to within ICANN (GA, etc.). 
This establishes the relationships without any prior knowledge of the 
membership composition. In addition, an X.509 certificate can be issued to 
each member for signing purposes (voting etc). Unfortunately this moves the 
discussion up to ICANN board level. This may not be politically correct but 
is very easy to maintain using an LDAP directory system.

- --
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 05:16:48 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 12:48:02PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At 17:27 23.03.00 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >- In order to be a member, one must send an email to the Keeper of the
> > >   Membership List (a secretariat function) asking to become a member,
> > >   and giving:
> > >   - Name
> > >   - Country of residence
> > >   - Optionally, company affiliation and/or city of residence
> > >   - Email to be used for balloting
> > >   All the information except the email will be made public.
> > >
> >Elisabeth is no longer doing the secretariat function, is she? To whom will
> >we address our emails?
> 
> We'll have to sort that out with our support staff; the contract is not
> with Elisabeth.
[...]
> I see no reason not to do that - but it depends on how the support staff
> feels that it can handle the task.

I asked this a while back, never saw an answer: What support staff? What
contract? Did you intend this an ironic comment? In any case, it would
be good to know, as a general practice, who is doing what functions.  
It would be good to know what functions, as well.

Kent

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:29:35 +0200
From: "Alf Hansen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

Harald,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 30. mars 2000 06:30
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [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.
>

Agree.

> I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard
> there too),

Yes, I am also an AT-large memeber, just in case. I am a DNSO member because
I represent a ccTLD and I am a part of the ccTLD Constituency. Can somebody
please explain why individuals (not connected to any organization in a DNSO
constituency) should be represented with voting rights in DNSO GA?

(I may step into a can-of-worms her, but I just want to hear the arguments,
and perhaps be convinced to change my mind....)

> 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.
>

I am sure that when the At-large comes into full operations there will be
many issuse brought up to the full membership. I am not sure how many votes
there will be during the year, but there will certainly be many
possibilities for individuals to have influence on the process.

Why should individuals be represented both in the At-large and in the DNSO
GA as individuals? Persons should certainly be able to be both an individual
in At-large, and represent an organization in the DNSO GA. But why be an
individual in borh?

> My guess.
>
>                         Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
>

Best regards,
Alf H
.NO

- --
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 08:45:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Simon and all assembly members,

  This is a good suggestion, and one that I made some months ago,
although in a somewhat diffrent fashion.

Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 01:59 PM 3/30/00 +0930, 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.
> >
> >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.
>
> Does this mean that membership registrations may be duplicated (At Large is
> a separate member registration from GA)?
>
> Surely all members should have a unique identifier as an At Large ICANN
> member, and then attributes are assigned to that identifier to identify the
> membership groups/organizations they subscribe to within ICANN (GA, etc.).
> This establishes the relationships without any prior knowledge of the
> membership composition. In addition, an X.509 certificate can be issued to
> each member for signing purposes (voting etc). Unfortunately this moves the
> discussion up to ICANN board level. This may not be politically correct but
> is very easy to maintain using an LDAP directory system.
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:18:44 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Alf Hansen and all assembly members,

Alf Hansen wrote:

> Harald,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: 30. mars 2000 06:30
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [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.
> >
>
> Agree.
>
> > I think most GA members will be At Large members (they want to be heard
> > there too),
>
> Yes, I am also an AT-large memeber, just in case. I am a DNSO member because
> I represent a ccTLD and I am a part of the ccTLD Constituency. Can somebody
> please explain why individuals (not connected to any organization in a DNSO
> constituency) should be represented with voting rights in DNSO GA?

  I can think of at least two good reasons.  The are as follows:

1.) The current constituencies do not necessarily represent the diversified
interests
      of a broad segment of the stakeholders as they are currently configured.

2.) The At-Large does not as currently suggested, represent or have
representation
     for specific DNS issues for those not members of any constituency and
     is restricted to 5000 members in total (This reason is of course related
    directly to #1. )

>
>
> (I may step into a can-of-worms her, but I just want to hear the arguments,
> and perhaps be convinced to change my mind....)
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am sure that when the At-large comes into full operations there will be
> many issuse brought up to the full membership. I am not sure how many votes
> there will be during the year, but there will certainly be many
> possibilities for individuals to have influence on the process.

  Yes this is likely or at least hopefully true.  But presently, we do not know
this.
We also can reasonably assume that on specific DNS related issues that At-Large
members will not have votes on specific issues therefore related.

>
>
> Why should individuals be represented both in the At-large and in the DNSO
> GA as individuals? Persons should certainly be able to be both an individual
> in At-large, and represent an organization in the DNSO GA. But why be an
> individual in borh?

  See above...

>
>
> > My guess.
> >
> >                         Harald
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > [email-masked]
> >
>
> Best regards,
> Alf H
> .NO
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:12:32 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

Jon was of the opinion that IANA had the authority to create new
TLDs, but he wanted to do it through the RFC process based on his
prior experience.

William says that Jon was mistaken, and that he didn't have the
authority. William is unfortunately wrong, for a number of
reasons. First, NSF gave IANA that authority in its grant to fund
IANA. The grant document is public record, I strongly recommend
getting a copy and reading it. 

Second, William claims that IANA had authority for ccTLDs, but not
iTLDs. If true, I ask that William document this separation of
authority. I have cited the NSF document that gave complete
discretionary authority (as has Simon). William claims that this
was for ccTLDs only, although that's not specified anywhere. One
could reason that there's no way to tell, based on the document
alone. If, however, IANA had no authority to add iTLDs, then I 
question how Jon added .int? William never answered that one
when I brought it up a couple of days ago. If IANA didn't have
the authority to add anything but ccTLDs, one would have to
presume that NSF would have stopped the addition of .int.

Based on these items, it is clear that IANA believed that the
authority was there, solicited applications for iTLDs based on
that belief, and that there is no factual or implied reason to
doubt that belief. There is also factual evidence that the
belief was correct, and that the discretionary authority was,
in fact, vested in IANA.

Christopher

=== begin archive ===

RE: top level domain policy ?
Jon Postel ([email-masked])
Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:44:34 -0800 

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] 
Next message: David Simmons: "RE: TLD discussion." 
Previous message: Simon Higgs: "RE: top level domain policy ?" 
Hi.

Please do read the "ymbk" I-D. 

It is the most likely basis for moving forward with the process of
registering new top level domains.

See 
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt
or
ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt

- --jon.

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:12 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html

I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
documents many things -

  legal and financial umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC)
  open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs
  multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly
  creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful fashion
  5 new registries to be created in 1996
  fifteen iTLDs will be created per year for the next five years

There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
(6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
referring to.

Obviously the scenery has changed a little, IANA is now ICANN, etc., but 
most of the general concepts are still valid. Hopefully, we can use what we 
can find consensus on, and move on.

FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

- --
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 09:28:52 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [TLD History] IANA TLD Registration Procedure

Hello,

Some of you may be wondering why I'm being so dogmatic about the previous 
history. Well, here is further proof of the procedure that was provided by 
IANA to us at the time. Jon was right about the long wait. ;-)

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1995q4/0197.html

***Start Message***

From: Jon Postel ([email-masked])
Subject: Re: Registering TLD's
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 22:49:44 -0800

Hi.

Want to register a new TLD?

Here is the procedure:

1) Get the Internic's domain template.
2) fill it out.
3) Send it to the IANA at <[email-masked]>.
4) Wait.

Be prepared to wait a long time since the IANA is not about to actually
allocate any new TLDs until the procedures we sometimes discussing on this
list get sorted out.

- --jon.

***End Message***

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The future is still out there...

- --
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 11:39:31 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:01:12AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html
> 
> I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
> document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
> documents many things -

It says:

    The NEWDOM, IETF, and related mailing lists are encouraged to read,
    and comment, on this material.  Presuming a consensus can be found
    within these audiences, the distribution of this memorandum should
    be expanded to include general commentary from the Internet
    community.

That is, it documents nothing but early thoughts on how things *might* be 
done, and EXPLICITLY states that the result will need to be brought 
before the "Internet community" before it can be ratified.

At the bottom it says:

    Postel Expires 30-Sep-96

That date is long past.

[...]
> There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
> (6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
> committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
> names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
> guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
> referring to.

Such people would be very foolish to follow guidelines that had never 
been ratified.

[...]

> FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

If you mean people trying to spin gold out of an extremely rough,
unofficial, unratified draft, yes.  

If you mean the rough, unofficial, unratified draft itself, no.  The
draft itself is part of a very long and winding process -- a rejected
part.  For reference, here's a relevant section of the boilerplate of 
all Internet Drafts:

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
    months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
    at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
    reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

So, while Jon's draft is an interesting window into the history of all
this debate, it has no standing whatsoever as a basis for action on the
part of anyone. 

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:10:55 -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:
> William says that Jon was mistaken, and that he didn't have the
> authority. William is unfortunately wrong, for a number of
> reasons. First, NSF gave IANA that authority in its grant to fund
> IANA. The grant document is public record, I strongly recommend
> getting a copy and reading it. 

You refer to a document that does NOT give that kind of authority.  Please,
quote the exact paragraph that states that IANA has authority over creation of
gTLDs.    The EXACT paragraph, Chris.  
 
> Second, William claims that IANA had authority for ccTLDs, but not
> iTLDs. If true, I ask that William document this separation of
> authority. I have cited the NSF document that gave complete
> discretionary authority (as has Simon). William claims that this
> was for ccTLDs only, although that's not specified anywhere. One

That document never stated that IANA had authority over creation of new gTLDs
either, Chris. 

Please, quote the exact paragraph that states that IANA has authority over
creation of gTLDs.    The EXACT paragraph, Chris.  

Let's stop dealing with twisting words around.  No more quoting multiple
documents that APPEAR when taken out of context to refer to something they
don't.  Give the EXACT document and the exact section that specifically states
that IANA has this authority.

The only documents I have seen are vague, and do seem to be directly related to
IP ADDRESSES and the relevent .ARPA domain and refer to ccTLDs.  Now I think
this is partly related to the fact that the people writing those documents
never envisioned new gTLDs being an issue.  But if that SPECIFIC authority was
never granted, it never existed.

I'm tired of this dance, Chris. Either get specific, or end it.

> could reason that there's no way to tell, based on the document
> alone. If, however, IANA had no authority to add iTLDs, then I 
> question how Jon added .int? William never answered that one
> when I brought it up a couple of days ago. If IANA didn't have
> the authority to add anything but ccTLDs, one would have to
> presume that NSF would have stopped the addition of .int.

I don't have the clear history of .int.  Do you?  If so, please post it.  My
understanding is that the creation of .int was NOT at IANA's behest.  So
perhaps you should do your homework before assuming that IANA created it.
 
> Based on these items, it is clear that IANA believed that the
> authority was there, solicited applications for iTLDs based on
> that belief, and that there is no factual or implied reason to
> doubt that belief. There is also factual evidence that the
> belief was correct, and that the discretionary authority was,
> in fact, vested in IANA.

So this is the crux of your argument.  There is nothing that says they DON'T
have the authority, so it can be assumed they did.  

THAT IS NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.  Authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, Chris.
 It must be granted.   

There is nothing in any docuement that would give anyone the reasonable belief
that IANA had that authority.  When you go to court on this point, Chris, they
will not be looking to see if any document states that IANA didn't have the
authority, it will be on your shoulders to prove that they DID.  Not that they
believed they did, not that Jon may have said he did, but that they actually
were assigned that SPECIFIC task.

I wish you luck in trying to prove that, you've not done it 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/

iD8DBQE447TP8zLmV94Pz+IRAkHSAJ4lF/V+e+HjQE6PNFpV2rxqGbb5vQCgwdBE
mzYtdT+jVNx8kN11MBURxRo=
=nBrS
- -----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 12:11:59 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of Interna

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

On 30-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html
> 
> I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
> document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
> documents many things -
> 
>   legal and financial umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC)
>   open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs
>   multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly
>   creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful fashion
>   5 new registries to be created in 1996
>   fifteen iTLDs will be created per year for the next five years

Too bad it is missing the most important thing.  SPECIFIC authority delegated
to IANA to greation new gTLDs.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE447UP8zLmV94Pz+IRAgA8AJ46vASxt8qndJ8AETqR+3elUsmSSwCgu+vq
Tl4Z5Hj/gssCDscCkVnN0e4=
=H8Zb
- -----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 12:49:48 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 12:10:55PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> THAT IS NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.  Authority doesn't exist in a
> vacuum, Chris.  It must be granted. 

This is an entertaining variation on the old theological paradox, "Who
created God". 

Personally, I firmly belive that authority can grow out of a vacuum.

- -- 
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:55:39 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

At 11:39 AM 3/30/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

What was clearly missed from my posting is the following:

"Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."

Or phrased another way:

"Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."

Does this help, Kent?

Roberto - Kent's response is another example of the answer to your question 
"Why?" It doesn't seem to matter, some people are adamantly opposed to 
finding consensus.

>On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:01:12AM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> >
> > http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html
> >
> > I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this
> > document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and
> > documents many things -
>
>It says:
>
>     The NEWDOM, IETF, and related mailing lists are encouraged to read,
>     and comment, on this material.  Presuming a consensus can be found
>     within these audiences, the distribution of this memorandum should
>     be expanded to include general commentary from the Internet
>     community.
>
>That is, it documents nothing but early thoughts on how things *might* be
>done, and EXPLICITLY states that the result will need to be brought
>before the "Internet community" before it can be ratified.
>
>At the bottom it says:
>
>     Postel Expires 30-Sep-96
>
>That date is long past.
>
>[...]
> > There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check
> > (6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc
> > committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs
> > names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the
> > guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are
> > referring to.
>
>Such people would be very foolish to follow guidelines that had never
>been ratified.
>
>[...]
>
> > FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".
>
>If you mean people trying to spin gold out of an extremely rough,
>unofficial, unratified draft, yes.
>
>If you mean the rough, unofficial, unratified draft itself, no.  The
>draft itself is part of a very long and winding process -- a rejected
>part.  For reference, here's a relevant section of the boilerplate of
>all Internet Drafts:
>
>     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
>     months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
>     at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as
>     reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>
>So, while Jon's draft is an interesting window into the history of all
>this debate, it has no standing whatsoever as a basis for action on the
>part of anyone.
>
>--
>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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:59:31 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

> At 11:39 AM 3/30/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> What was clearly missed from my posting is the following:
>
> "Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."
>
> Or phrased another way:
>
> "Hopefully, we can use what we can find consensus on, and move on."
>
> Does this help, Kent?
>
> Roberto - Kent's response is another example of the answer to your
question
> "Why?" It doesn't seem to matter, some people are adamantly opposed to
> finding consensus.

Furthermore, Kent's arguments work against him, as they also tend
to invalidate the very arguments that the IAHC used to justify their
plan and existence.

Kent's position might very well be summed up as "My way or nothing."

- --
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:35:15 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Chris and all assembly members,

  We all know that WXW really doesn't understand legal documents very
well.
I think it is just best to leave it at that.  I am not concerned what
WXW
understands or not.  I would humbly suggest that you do the same.
Anyone
that takes WXW seriously on these sorts of matters is making a mistake
in judgment, IMHO.

  You and Simon are right Chris.  That much is clear from the already
documents of which in part have been documented as posted here.
The only part that was fuzzy was where the IAHC and the gTLD-MoU
had or did not have authority whether seeded or implied or not
during that time span.  I don't believe that they did.  It really is a
point
that was settled in the advent of the Green paper and later the White
paper
anyway.

  It is however important as you, Simon and to a lesser extent, I have
pointed
out that the history of where we came from to where we are now, and if
that
may be relevant in a potential future legal proceeding.  This would be
especially
true in the creation of new TLD's should some original registrants in
that process
be infringed upon.  A court of law would indeed have to determine this.

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Jon was of the opinion that IANA had the authority to create new
> TLDs, but he wanted to do it through the RFC process based on his
> prior experience.
>
> William says that Jon was mistaken, and that he didn't have the
> authority. William is unfortunately wrong, for a number of
> reasons. First, NSF gave IANA that authority in its grant to fund
> IANA. The grant document is public record, I strongly recommend
> getting a copy and reading it.
>
> Second, William claims that IANA had authority for ccTLDs, but not
> iTLDs. If true, I ask that William document this separation of
> authority. I have cited the NSF document that gave complete
> discretionary authority (as has Simon). William claims that this
> was for ccTLDs only, although that's not specified anywhere. One
> could reason that there's no way to tell, based on the document
> alone. If, however, IANA had no authority to add iTLDs, then I
> question how Jon added .int? William never answered that one
> when I brought it up a couple of days ago. If IANA didn't have
> the authority to add anything but ccTLDs, one would have to
> presume that NSF would have stopped the addition of .int.
>
> Based on these items, it is clear that IANA believed that the
> authority was there, solicited applications for iTLDs based on
> that belief, and that there is no factual or implied reason to
> doubt that belief. There is also factual evidence that the
> belief was correct, and that the discretionary authority was,
> in fact, vested in IANA.
>
> Christopher
>
> === begin archive ===
>
> RE: top level domain policy ?
> Jon Postel ([email-masked])
> Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:44:34 -0800
>
> Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
> Next message: David Simmons: "RE: TLD discussion."
> Previous message: Simon Higgs: "RE: top level domain policy ?"
> Hi.
>
> Please do read the "ymbk" I-D.
>
> It is the most likely basis for moving forward with the process of
> registering new top level domains.
>
> See
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt
> or
> ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt
>
> --jon.
>
> --
> 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

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 #38
***********************