Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #40
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 31 2000            Volume 01 : Number 040

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:57:29 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] This should settle it.

First, you're wrong. Read it again. It says that IANA had the
authority.

Second, if you don't know who George Strawn is, then you really
don't know your history on this.

I've made my point.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 7:37 PM
To: Christopher Ambler
Cc: [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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:10:47 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

George Strawn - just to give you a hint:

http://www.interact.nsf.gov/cise/contact.nsf/lastname/Strawn?OpenDocument

>36. ... IANA continued its function of overseeing the 
>allocation of IP numbers and domain name registrations.

The fact that it refers to the RFC is to put into context
the fact that NSF gave authority to IANA to authorize
changes to the DNS.

>38. ...  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.

William, you asked for DIRECT EVIDENCE of IANA's authority. This
comes from the DIRECTOR OF THE NSF in charge of these things. You
can't have much more direct evidence than this!

READ NUMBER 36 AGAIN! This is a DIRECT STATEMENT by the NSF that
IANA's function was overseeing the allocation of IP numbers and
domain name registrations.

I reiterate...

I believe, 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 20:09:52 -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:
> First, you're wrong. Read it again. It says that IANA had the
> authority.

Yes, by referencing RFC's that have no weight of law, and were written at the
behest, control, or direction of IANA itself, who cannot give itself the
authority.  
 
> Second, if you don't know who George Strawn is, then you really
> don't know your history on this.

Chris, unlike you, I do not work for or own stock in a company which has a
direct financial or other stake in this process where I would know the name of
each and every person who has been involved in this.  However, I do have a good
working knowledge from the years on these forums of the basis behind most of
these issues.  Where I haven't I have made it clear, and asked for
documentation to back up what you have tried to claim.   If what you say is
true, finding documentation, and answering questions about the people who you
are quoting and the authority they may or may not have, should not be so
difficult for you to do.  That you get so defensive over it when asked a direct
and honest question to cite the authority of the person you quote, I only have
to question if there is a reason you didn't just answer the question.

So since you were willing to provide a polite answer to the question, I checked
it out on my own, and discovered that the person quoted was a participant in
the IAHC process, and a member (and co-chair) of the Federal Networking
Council.  While I could not find anything that indicates that he has any
authority to give an official opinion on the issue, I did note that a statement
on the main page specifically seperates the FNC and the USGovt. with the role
Mr Strawn played in the IAHC process.   It looks like his positions were not
necessarily in line with the positions of the official bodies who actually DO
have the authority, and they seperated themselves from actions he took outside
the scope of his role.  As an IAHC participant, a high profile one at that, it
was most certainly his opinion, as it was the rest of them, that IANA had this
authority.  But his testimony is certainly not authoritative on the issue.
 
> I've made my point.

No, you haven't Chris,  you really haven't.  And all I can say is that I really
hope your company is more prepared for asking these questions in court.  The
best defense CORE can take is to just admit that IANA didn't have the
authority, and use the lack of authority of IANA to totally defeat and any all
claims IOD might make or imagine they have to a top level domain.

You've made the point that you are not intereted in providing documentation in
the full context in which it exists, and instead to take bits and pieces of it,
quote it out of context where it appears to support your position, take
unofficial and non-binding documents and assert their official status and use
them to support your supposition, and otherwise ignore clear and compelling
evidence that shows the opposite. 

The bottom line is that if IANA had the authority, why did it fail to get the
IAHC domains included when it sought that?  The best test of the authority
issue is when they actually tried to assert the authority and do something with
it.  IANA failed that very important test, and no documentation you have
provided shows the authority existed otherwise.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45CUQ8zLmV94Pz+IRAgX2AJ9LP8jRvzEaLj3P1xz43sgPvwXGfQCg5NR7
NEF9tu2giEQx+M85ErqDIFs=
=I13E
- -----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 20:18:06 -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:
> 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.

NSI???  :)     I think we can safely have consensus that NSI doesn't have and
never had that authority.  The directive NSF issued to ignore any IANA requests
for new TLDs that were not ccTLDs is quite clear on just who held the control.

If IANA had the authority, we wouldn't be sitting here having this conversation
on this list.  We would have had 7 new gTLDs added some years ago.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45Cb+8zLmV94Pz+IRApbAAKCpb2Ug/J3fmrE9QbI47nuOL9h4SQCfWy7v
NB9rfZr6xxCae7dLlei/d/s=
=Q/Y7
- -----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 20:41:01 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] This should settle it.

Let me quickly address this, as well...

>Chris, unlike you, I do not work for or own stock in a company which has a
>direct financial or other stake in this process where I would know the name
of
>each and every person who has been involved in this.

My surprise was that you would make sweeping claims of lack of authority,
and then not know the name of the individual at the NSF who could attest
to that authority (or the lack thereof).

>And all I can say is that I really
>hope your company is more prepared for asking these questions in court.
The
>best defense CORE can take is to just admit that IANA didn't have the
>authority, and use the lack of authority of IANA to totally defeat and any
all
>claims IOD might make or imagine they have to a top level domain.

I don't see how this has any relevance to the current trademark infringement
litigation. IANA doesn't enter into it at all. Your statement demonstrates
that you've no idea of the causes of action that IOD has brought against
CORE. It has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I invite you
to read the public documents on the case if you're confused or curious.

>The bottom line is that if IANA had the authority, why did it fail to get
the
>IAHC domains included when it sought that?  The best test of the authority
>issue is when they actually tried to assert the authority and do something
with
>it.  IANA failed that very important test, and no documentation you have
>provided shows the authority existed otherwise.

Actually, they have. Let's answer your question. Why did IANA fail to get
the IAHC domains included? Simply because as of 4 April, 1997, IANA had
disclaimed any authority back to NSF. By that time, NSF had reclaimed the
authority for the USG as you assert. That's why IANA failed what you would
consider a test at the time.

At no time prior to 4 April, 1997 did IANA try to add new TLDs. Indeed, the
one time they were asked about it (the date in question), IANA decided that
they (or Jon Postel decided that he) would rather not be in charge.

But prior to 4 April, 1997, it is clear that not only did IANA believe that
it had the authority, but NSF believed so as well. Hence, my suggestion that
the cutoff date for pioneer preference is clear.

- --
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 20:38:01 -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:
> At no time prior to 4 April, 1997 did IANA try to add new TLDs. Indeed, the
> one time they were asked about it (the date in question), IANA decided that
> they (or Jon Postel decided that he) would rather not be in charge.
> 
> But prior to 4 April, 1997, it is clear that not only did IANA believe that
> it had the authority, but NSF believed so as well. Hence, my suggestion that
> the cutoff date for pioneer preference is clear.

No clear authority exists, Chris.  Bottom line.  Sexton's points are good
insights into this.   Perhaps Jon just finally realized he wouldn't be able to
assert the authority he thought IANA should have had, and stopped fighting it.

Nothing is as clear on this as you would have us believe, Chris.

And the issue of IANA authority on this is important. You are claiming
protection of a mark, and if it can be shown that the process underwhich you
are claiming the mark, the very basis of your claim to that mark, is obviously
and clearly unsubstantiable, then your claims for protection would probably be
looked at with more skepticism.   

I'm in the unique position I think on this forum of wanting to see both parties
fail in their claims.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45Cup8zLmV94Pz+IRAjbzAJ4jXIllkq0D1F5+b/HHPJCHkgi/qwCgkHC+
Bs06dcTUbH+oUJFaNzJ+fS0=
=tKDV
- -----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 20:46:49 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Not exactly.  RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

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

On 31-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> George Strawn - just to give you a hint:
> 
> http://www.interact.nsf.gov/cise/contact.nsf/lastname/Strawn?OpenDocument
> 
>>36. ... IANA continued its function of overseeing the 
>>allocation of IP numbers and domain name registrations.

Most certainly it did.   This is not inconsistent with its role with regard to
ccTLDs. But it most certainly does not clearly give them any authority with
regard to new top level domains.    

>>38. ...  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.
> 
> William, you asked for DIRECT EVIDENCE of IANA's authority. This
> comes from the DIRECTOR OF THE NSF in charge of these things. You
> can't have much more direct evidence than this!

"NSI instead was required to consult with...."  No where did it say that either
party had the ability or authority to make decisions regarding those
applications.  It provided a chain for the applications, nothing more.   
Again, since the assumption was (you said it) that new gTLDs were not going to
be created, it is safe to assume this was directly refering to new top level
domain applications within the ccTLD realm.
 
> READ NUMBER 36 AGAIN! This is a DIRECT STATEMENT by the NSF that
> IANA's function was overseeing the allocation of IP numbers and
> domain name registrations.

No, its not Chris.  I know you desperate what it to be so.  But its not.  If
IANA had the authority we wouldn't be here right now, Chris, discussing this. 
Bottom line.  If IANA had the authority, NSF would not have told NSI to not add
any new gTLDs if requested to do so by IANA.  

Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which I
don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority away.  Since the
NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the USG
who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one else
on this subject.
 
> I reiterate...
> 
> I believe, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
> for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
> actions.

The date may as well be Jan 1, 1900 for all it matters.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45C248zLmV94Pz+IRAnOeAKChKnY07W3N1u8/oLEe5B36XFwZ+gCgsmS8
QxkQNxWof4sllxHz2xkzhjg=
=bOqH
- -----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 21:03:01 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Not exactly.  RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

>No, its not Chris.  I know you desperate what it to be so.  But its not.
If
>IANA had the authority we wouldn't be here right now, Chris, discussing
this.
>Bottom line.  If IANA had the authority, NSF would not have told NSI to not
add
>any new gTLDs if requested to do so by IANA.

You are being obtuse to the point of annoyance. I showed that IANA gave the
authority up on 4 April, 1997. Hence, your "bottom line" is irrelevant: it
happened after the fact.

>Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which
I
>don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority away.  Since
the
>NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the
USG
>who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one
else
>on this subject.

Now here you are closer. You do not believe that IANA had the authority.
That's
your personal belief, which I suspect you're entitled to. I maintain that
you're
wrong, which, I suspect, I'm entitled to. My contention is that the
authority
was clear at the time, and no consultation was necessary. I believe that the
legal documents I've cited back that up. You do not feel that they do.

In another message I was preparing, I was going to say:

] >No clear authority exists, Chris.  Bottom line.  Sexton's points are good
] >insights into this.   Perhaps Jon just finally realized he wouldn't be
able to
] >assert the authority he thought IANA should have had, and stopped
fighting it.
]
] The bloody director of the NSF division in charge says that IANA has
] the authority, and you don't BELIEVE him? What part of his deposition
] did you not understand?!

I think this underscores my point as well, and you do not agree.

As it turns out, since this is a case of two opinions, there's no way to
decide this. We could hold a vote, but I think we'd get a sum total of 4 or
5
ballots cast.

I propose a truce on the issue, as we've obviously come to difference of
opinion on the interpretation of the documents as presented. Fair enough?

Finally, on the issue of our current lawsuit, let me not send the
argumentative response I was planning, and instead just state calmly
that IOD claims IANA authority as the reason the registry was taken online,
and
perhaps also as the reason fees were charged, but it has nothing to do with
the mark itself. Your claims that this issue is pivotal to the current
lawsuit
against CORE is not the case - it has nothing to do with it. It's a simple
case of infringement, and the source of authority has no bearing on the
mark itself. I invite you to read the complaint and other public documents
in the case. If you do not have them, let me know, and I'll see about
getting them to you as a personal favour. But I would also ask that you
not make sweeping statements about the basis for the case unless you're
sure that you're right - in this case, you're not.

- --
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

- --
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

- --
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 21:50:51 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

At 08:10 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:

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

I'd make that cut-off date June 25, 1997. Before that date, NSI were still 
requesting permission to add TLDs. The NSF wrote back to NSI on that date 
with specific instructions. See:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI06251997.jpg

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The bandwidth is 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 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

- --
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 22:08:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] mail loop in progress...

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

Someone on the list with an email address served by the netaddress service has
got a loop running, resending the list mail back to the list, it appears.

Fun Fun Fun.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE45ED18zLmV94Pz+IRApWRAJ93w7rogbyEPIbK+rvtqPd5TVz9yQCgsYe6
8dOne0iEGcl9qbLsNMMChUM=
=wPyG
- -----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 22:13:19 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:50:51PM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 08:10 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> >I believe, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
> >for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
> >actions.
> 
> I'd make that cut-off date June 25, 1997. Before that date, NSI were still 
> requesting permission to add TLDs. The NSF wrote back to NSI on that date 
> with specific instructions. See:
> 
> http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI06251997.jpg

I'm with William on this one -- Jan 1, 1900.

- -- 
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 22:11:32 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Not exactly.  RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

At 08:46 PM 3/30/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>Even if I were to give you that IANA HAD the authority at one point (which I
>don't believe by any stretch), NSF clearly took that authority 
>away.  Since the
>NSF was not consulted and was not a party to whatever IANA was doing, the USG
>who does hold the authority is not under any obligation to IOD or any one else
>on this subject.

Jon apparently relinquished the IANA authority to NSF officially according 
to George Strawn's testimony:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/NSF-Strawn.txt

 >> NSF's DIRECTIVE TO NSI REGARDING PGMEDIA's REQUEST FOR NEW gTLDs
 >>
 >> 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."

NSI was being sued by PGP Media/Name Space to include their gazillions of 
TLDs in the root. Jon's involvement was as the IR delegating authority to 
NSI (as documented in RFC1591, the co-op agreement, etc.). Jon relinquished 
that authority to absolve IANA from that lawsuit. This allows IANA to 
respond to the lawsuit with the following letter dated the same day:

See http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/IANA-NSI0404.jpg

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The bandwidth is 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 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

- --
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 22:36:37 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

Really? Then you relegate CORE to the list of the unauthorized,
too? Surely IANA either had authority or not...

Wow, surprising, Kent...

- --
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:13 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 09:50:51PM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> At 08:10 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>
> >I believe, that we can place April 4, 1997 as the cutoff date
> >for any consideration of pioneer preference based on IANA's
> >actions.
>
> I'd make that cut-off date June 25, 1997. Before that date, NSI were still
> requesting permission to add TLDs. The NSF wrote back to NSI on that date
> with specific instructions. See:
>
> http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI06251997.jpg

I'm with William on this one -- Jan 1, 1900.

- --
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 22:51:40 -0800
From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dave
> Crocker
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 2:09 PM

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

Maybe in your world that may be the case, but in the real-life commercial
world there is always a quid pro quo. The funding is ALWAYS in exchange for
something of equivalent value. In this case, IANA was getting paid to
perform a function. Regardless of whatever that function may be, would you
agree that this principle would stand? Even the USG does not hand out cash
for no reason. Although, I may grant you that many American academics may
qualify for food stamps [sad, but true].

- --
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 22:26:09 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NSF, RFC1591 & new TLDs question

Hi,

Could someone point me to any documentation that updates the position of 
the National Science Foundation, as stated here by Don Mitchell, with 
regard to adding TLDs to the root per RFC1591:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg

Thank you,

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
The bandwidth is 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #40
***********************