Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #39
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 31 2000            Volume 01 : Number 039

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

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:39:22 +0930
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

At 09:12 AM 3/30/00 -0800, 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.

The "RFC process" publishes documents.  It has nothing to do with granding 
authority, permission, or stating a decision (other than to make a document 
part of the RFC archive.).

Hence, whatever it is that you meant by the reference, it is incorrect.

>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.

IANA created and administered the DNS and its TLDs from the start of the 
DNS, long before NSF was involved.

There is a continuing failure to distinguish between funding and 
authority.  They are quite separate things.

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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:16:01 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> The "RFC process" publishes documents.  It has nothing to do with granding
> authority, permission, or stating a decision (other than to make a
document
> part of the RFC archive.).
>
> Hence, whatever it is that you meant by the reference, it is incorrect.

Really? So if I say that it meant that you were a brilliant person, I'd be
incorrect. Damn, too bad, that.

Dave, you're insulting.

Jon wanted to reach consensus, publish same as RFC, and enact. Nothing
more, nothing less. Even you can understand that.

> IANA created and administered the DNS and its TLDs from the start of the
> DNS, long before NSF was involved.
>
> There is a continuing failure to distinguish between funding and
> authority.  They are quite separate things.

You're making my point for me, then. NSF funded, IANA had authority.
They may or may not be related.

- --
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 14:28:59 -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:
>> IANA created and administered the DNS and its TLDs from the start of the
>> DNS, long before NSF was involved.
>>
>> There is a continuing failure to distinguish between funding and
>> authority.  They are quite separate things.
> 
> You're making my point for me, then. NSF funded, IANA had authority.
> They may or may not be related.
> 

I will only point out that the IAHC effort HAS to give the impression that IANA
had the authority, even if it didn't, because all of their work, and all of the
promises they made to the CORE registrars, were predicated on this self-assumed
"authority."

Whats funny is that both the self-proclaimed registries and CORE both need to
argue that IANA had an authority it didn't have, and for which there exists no
documentation for it having, in order try and bolster their respective claims. 
It really does seem they have more in common than the CORE supporters want to
admit.

But both claims fall far short of being accurate.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE449Ur8zLmV94Pz+IRAh+TAKDZVLVjLlLFFmBMJjb8DA1D6A0AgwCg0f87
riidkMFg+K0XFTIHUxUyTSo=
=tqvS
- -----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 17:37:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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".

  God has no barring on these issues.  Men and women do.

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

  ROFLMAO!  Somehow I figured this would be your belief.  Indeed
this is telling.....

>
>
> --
> 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

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 17:40:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

Simon and all assembly members,

  I agree some people are opposed to consensus.  Consensus must be
measurable to adequately determine if it exists.  This requires a VOTE.
Something I feel some parties are adamantly opposed to as well.  Even
several ICANN Board members have publicly stated such....

Simon Higgs wrote:

> 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

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 16:56:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Jeff Williams wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I firmly belive that authority can grow out of a vacuum.
> 
>   ROFLMAO!  Somehow I figured this would be your belief.  Indeed
> this is telling.....
> 

What is more telling is that you appear to give the impression you disagree
with him when that is the exact thing you have said you supported when both
Ambler and Higgs tried to imply that authority did grow out of vacuum(in not
quite so many words).

It really is confusing when people's positions are fluid and based more on who
said something rather than on what they said.  Do you have a position on this
issue?  Or is it just agree with anyone who disagrees with people I don't like,
even if it creates a contradiction?

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE44/fL8zLmV94Pz+IRAo8jAJ41ZdMHzzTMRO2XOx/1//ToxdrB/QCg19Lg
xaYP/KiY/yyMWuN2Lrxq6q8=
=RMFH
- -----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 17:21:25 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> What is more telling is that you appear to give the impression you
disagree
> with him when that is the exact thing you have said you supported when
both
> Ambler and Higgs tried to imply that authority did grow out of vacuum(in
not
> quite so many words).

I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers. They never put a
constraint on it. As such, IANA has exercised that authority in creating
country-code TLDs, International TLDs, and a myriad of other protocol
identifiers.

You ask for a specific place where NSF said, "Hey, IANA, you can create
gTLDs!" (never mind that there was no such thing as a "gTLD" at the time.
Even Jon Postel's preferred "iTLD" name wasn't coined yet). There is
no such place. There is also no such place where the NSF said that IANA
could specifically select ports for HTML (didn't exist yet) or SMTP (did
exist). They just gave a blanket "discretionary authority" approval.

IANA used it.

End of story.

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 17:49:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
> authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers.

Nothing in those documents gave them authority over ALL domain identifiers. 
The ones I saw were clearly in the context of IP Address management.  There
document never clearly gave them authority over all domain identifiers, at
least not the ones that actually came from the USG and weren't written by
others or IANA itself.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45AQV8zLmV94Pz+IRAgvCAKCg66zDiBxKRZLf+Wnyek5IGDD4+ACgv+tz
cZ4oNA1obsRBSXMWmY6ev4Q=
=sAQ/
- -----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 19:42:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

William and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 31-Mar-2000 Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally, I firmly belive that authority can grow out of a vacuum.
> >
> >   ROFLMAO!  Somehow I figured this would be your belief.  Indeed
> > this is telling.....
> >
>
> What is more telling is that you appear to give the impression you disagree
> with him when that is the exact thing you have said you supported when both
> Ambler and Higgs tried to imply that authority did grow out of vacuum(in not
> quite so many words).

  I have said no such thing william.  Please provide a citation/URL/Archived
E-mIal that states such.  I HAVE said that on the whole and in some specific
areas Chirs and Simon have been correct in their comments along these lines.
A few areas of specifics I think Simon may be mistaken or incomplete, but
very few, and I indicated that precisely and indicated where those comments
recollections were.

  Simon and Chris's documentation in not refutable, although you seem to
wish to attempt to do so incorrectly as Chris rightly and accurately
stated on an earlier post on this thread.

>
>
> It really is confusing when people's positions are fluid and based more on who
> said something rather than on what they said.  Do you have a position on this
> issue?  Or is it just agree with anyone who disagrees with people I don't like,
> even if it creates a contradiction?

  I don't agree or disagree with anyone in particular but can as I stated just
above that almost all of what Simon and Chris have stated in these areas.
What I didn't agree with from Simon, was a very minor point and also
only in that particular or specific comment only.

>
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE44/fL8zLmV94Pz+IRAo8jAJ41ZdMHzzTMRO2XOx/1//ToxdrB/QCg19Lg
> xaYP/KiY/yyMWuN2Lrxq6q8=
> =RMFH
> -----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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:58:50 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
> > authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers.
>
> Nothing in those documents gave them authority over ALL domain
identifiers.
> The ones I saw were clearly in the context of IP Address management.
There
> document never clearly gave them authority over all domain identifiers, at
> least not the ones that actually came from the USG and weren't written by
> others or IANA itself.

It also didn't give them control over protocol port identifiers, but that's
another
thing they were doing for years and years. Shall that authority now be
rolled
back, too?

Get realistic here, your argument falls flat when you start claiming that if
it's
not spelled out it doesn't exist.

- --
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 18:00:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> > I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
>> > authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers.
>>
>> Nothing in those documents gave them authority over ALL domain
> identifiers.
>> The ones I saw were clearly in the context of IP Address management.
> There
>> document never clearly gave them authority over all domain identifiers, at
>> least not the ones that actually came from the USG and weren't written by
>> others or IANA itself.
> 
> It also didn't give them control over protocol port identifiers, but that's
> another
> thing they were doing for years and years. Shall that authority now be
> rolled
> back, too?
> 
> Get realistic here, your argument falls flat when you start claiming that if
> it's
> not spelled out it doesn't exist.
> 

No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is
really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is more
inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice you
never responded to that point.

If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it should
be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take yourself
apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that the
authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding

The documents are clear in their full context.  Like you, I urge people to read
the surrounding text, and see exactly what was being discussed..

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45AbG8zLmV94Pz+IRAop9AKCgNIA+rqCK3tifCmotTYqczT8TUwCgrzTP
iqePX9kb7Aji4BXC7fBBsbU=
=8wsZ
- -----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 18:08:49 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it
is
> really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is
more
> inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice
you
> never responded to that point.

I did ask Richard. He didn't agree with you. He's also not on the "ga" list.

> If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it
should
> be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take
yourself
> apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that
the
> authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding

Then how do you explain IANA adding .int? How do you explain IANA
assigning port numbers?

Simple questions.

- --
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 18:10:26 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it
> is
>> really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is
> more
>> inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice
> you
>> never responded to that point.
> 
> I did ask Richard. He didn't agree with you. He's also not on the "ga" list.

Then ask him to reconcile that with what he said to Tom Postel.  

- - ----------
>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.
- - ----------

This is what he said, very very recently in response to Tom Postel, Jon's
brother.  Doesn't seem to fit with what you are saying, Chris.

 >> If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it
> should
>> be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take
> yourself
>> apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that
> the
>> authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding
> 
> Then how do you explain IANA adding .int? How do you explain IANA
> assigning port numbers?

I have not seen anything that says IANA was solely responsible for adding .int.
 Have you?  Do you have a document on the history of .INT that shows it was
done solely on the authority of IANA?

The way I understand it, the proposal originated somewhere else, was fielded by
IANA, who in turn recommended it to the USG oversight, who gave them the go
ahead.  Thats the way I have always heard it told.  And that is totally
consistent with the chain of authority.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45AkS8zLmV94Pz+IRAqhMAKCecFj5hXD2mNT8yNVDeVrsTRiQnwCcDfPa
u8LPv0US/5hiT8ldKlvN7U0=
=i9hK
- -----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 19:01:05 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] This should settle it.

From the declaration of George Strawn in one of the PGMedia v. NSI cases:

(NB: "Intemet" appears to be a transcription error, but I've left this
unmolested)

=== begin quote

27. During the early Intemet, the IANA had responsibility for
registration of first-and second-level domain names. As such, the
responsibility for assigning IP numbers and registenng domain names
was centralized with the IANA. The Defense Information Systems Agency
Network Information Center, a military contractor-operated facility,
actually performed the number assignment registrations.

=== end quote

He then goes on to describe how NSI's contract evolved. He
continues... (again, "LANA" would be "IANA" transcribed
incorrectly)

=== continue quote

36. The Cooperative Agreement named NSI as the NIS Manager. Though NSI
had not, at the point it began to implement the Agreement, been named
in an RFC as the Intemet Registry. However, the task of registering
second level domain names within five of the generic TLDs (or "gTLDs")
(".com", ".org", ".net", ".edu" and ".gov") was transferred to NSI
transferred from the GSI subcontract. Thus, NSI continued registration
services, but under the Cooperative Agreement. IANA continued its
function of overseeing the allocation of IP numbers and domain name
registrations.

38. In March 1994, RFC 1591 (copy annexed hereto as Exhibit H~- the
successor to RFC 1174 - was issued. RFC 1591, like RFC 1174, concerned
the functioning of the Internet Registry. However, while the earlier
RFC referred to the DNS only in passing (concentrating instead on the
allocation of IP numbers), the later RFC addressed in detail the
structure and operation ofthe DNS. RFC 1591 officially named NSI as
the Internet Registry ("IR"). That RFC also contemplated that it was
"extremely unlikely" that any new gTLDs would be created, and in any
event set forth the standard that "applications for new top-level
domains (for example country code domains) [were to be] handled by the
IR [NSI] with consultation with the IANA." See Exhibit H, ~ 2 and 3
(emphasis added). NSF understood that the LANA would authorize
substantive changes to the DNS only where those changes had consensus
support within the Internet community.

45. Under the Cooperative Agreement and RFC 1591, NSI had no
unilateral authority to register new gTLDs. NSI instead was required
to consult with the LANA regarding any applications for new TLDs.
PGMedia's request for the addition of hundreds of new gTLDs was
initially forwarded by NSI to the IANA. Subsequently, I was infommed
that by letter dated April 4, 1997, the IANA disavowed any authority
to make a decision in response to the request. NSI then referred the
question to NSF, which viewed IANA's disavowal as inconsistent with
RFC 1591's requirement that applications for new TLDs be disposed
of"with consultation with the IANA."

=== end quote.

William, here's your direct, spelled-out authority. Up until April 4, 1997,
IANA had the authority to add new TLDs. On that date, Postel
chose to (wisely) disavow any authority.

I believe, then, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
actions.

- --
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 21:00:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

William and all assembly members,

  Look WXW, the authority was implied or indirect, not explicit or
direct.  So why nit pick this?  Just to make a point that if not
explicit and direct, authority didn't exist?  Hardly a reasonable
argument, and certainly not reasonable.  The only fuzzy point is
whom had authority to add any TLD's to the Root itself.  That was
definitely NSI, and they proved it years ago.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> > I've never said it grows out of vacuum. I've said that the NSF gave IANA
> >> > authority over numeric and alphanumeric identifiers.
> >>
> >> Nothing in those documents gave them authority over ALL domain
> > identifiers.
> >> The ones I saw were clearly in the context of IP Address management.
> > There
> >> document never clearly gave them authority over all domain identifiers, at
> >> least not the ones that actually came from the USG and weren't written by
> >> others or IANA itself.
> >
> > It also didn't give them control over protocol port identifiers, but that's
> > another
> > thing they were doing for years and years. Shall that authority now be
> > rolled
> > back, too?
> >
> > Get realistic here, your argument falls flat when you start claiming that if
> > it's
> > not spelled out it doesn't exist.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't, Chris.  Delegated authority doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is
> really quite simple.   Go ask Richard Sexton if you want someone who is more
> inline with your position and he will tell you the same thing.  I notice you
> never responded to that point.
>
> If it isn't spelled out, it can't exist, Chris.  At the very minimum it should
> be implied in the documents, and its not even to that level.  Take yourself
> apart from it for a minute, and stop reading them from the assumption that the
> authority exists.  You will get a much better understanding
>
> The documents are clear in their full context.  Like you, I urge people to read
> the surrounding text, and see exactly what was being discussed..
>
> - --
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQE45AbG8zLmV94Pz+IRAop9AKCgNIA+rqCK3tifCmotTYqczT8TUwCgrzTP
> iqePX9kb7Aji4BXC7fBBsbU=
> =8wsZ
> -----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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:37:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] This should settle it.

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> William, here's your direct, spelled-out authority. Up until April 4, 1997,
> IANA had the authority to add new TLDs. On that date, Postel
> chose to (wisely) disavow any authority.

No it is not.  The only thing this does is defer to RFC1591, which merely says
that if someone wanted to apply, they may, and told them how to do that, but it
did not say that those applications were going to be recognized or carry any
authority or preference or anything else.

Also, I would like some more background on the person who is giving this
testimony, and what his source of authority is on this.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45B1r8zLmV94Pz+IRAif2AJwJRRRFcrKhA9oMuCXrHExqX6fbowCg6FDb
Vtk0kAZmF2EcAHdJrGq/ESY=
=fiog
- -----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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #39
***********************