Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #41
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 31 2000            Volume 01 : Number 041

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

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:56:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] This should settle it.

William and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----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.

  And therefore it is a document or was, for the establishment of new TLD's.
If it was not, than why have a process by which to apply?

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

  Well I think you can do your own homework here.  If not then I
would suppose you ore either SOL or not very interested in knowing.

>
>
>
> - --
> 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

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 10:01:12 -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 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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:13:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] This should settle it.

William and all assembly members,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----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.

  RFC's in and of themselves do not have weight of law, true enough.
But under contract with the USG they could and in some cases are
referenced as a quasi standard or "Request For Comment" and/or
otherwise guidelines if associated or referenced in said contract(s)
with the USG.

>
>
> > 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.

  Whether or not a person owns stock in a company that may have an
interest does not necessarily determine or influence that persons position
or viewpoint on much of anything, even if that investment is substantial.
I am a stock holder in a number of stocks with different companies that
have an interest, and it does not have any sway over my opinion or
position on any of these issues what so ever.  To paint Chris or anyone
based on this fact or assertion alone is paramount to prejudice beyond
reason.

>  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.

  It isn't difficult to do, but it is not Chris's job or responsibility to do so
if questioned by you or me.  He can if he wishes of course, but the responsibility
to refute the documentation adequately is the responsibility of the one
doing the refuting.  Do you own homework is the key...

>  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.

  No one is under and indictment here William that I know of, if so,
maybe you could show us a copy of that document?  >;)  If not, than
this mostly sounds like grandstanding or a bit of paranoia.

>
>
> 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.

  ROFLMAO!  Please.....

>
>
> > 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.

  This may be a good strategy in a court of law, if the judge would believe it.
Given that, I would say it would depend on the venue in which any court
proceeding would take place.  California would not be a good one for IOD.
But than again I am sure Chris is already aware of this.

>
>
> 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.

  There are always two opposing sets of documents and/or points of view
at least.  The determining factors in a legal proceeding will of course
look at these and make a judgment.

>
>
> The bottom line is that if IANA had the authority, why did it fail to get the
> IAHC domains included when it sought that?

  NSI refused to add them to the Root, don't you remember?

>  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.

  Again a supposition that is not in evidence or can be determined here
for a fact.

>
>
> - --
> 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

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 23:29:16 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Direct Evidence, as asked

At 10:13 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.

Please explain your basis for that date.

- --
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:20:48 -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:
> > 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.

  Authority, maybe not.  But when the IAHC/gTLD-MoU folks tried to
get their 7 favorite TLD's added NSI refused.  And they were not
overridden by the NSF at that time.  Hence, it seems clear, that NSI
may not have had the authority, but exercised serious influence at least.

>  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.

  That is agreed.  But the IANA with the approval of NSF a the time was
supposed to have the authority in fact, but NSI had control of the Roots,
at that time which gave them the real authority to make the determination
much to the IANA''s and CORE's dislike, if you recall.

>
>
> 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.

  Maybe, and maybe not. NSI had operational control, and thus shared
the authority IMHO with the IANA.  The fact that NSI refused to add
new TLD's that IANA/CORE requested, is evident of this, but not
definitively documented as such.  It was none the less implied.

>
>
> - --
> 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

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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:32:09 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [IPN] ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names

All assembly members,

  FYI, from Info-Policy:
==================

        [IPN] ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date:
        Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:29:00 -0500 (EST)
   From:
        James Love <[email-masked]>
     To:
        [email-masked]

This is a missive I sent this evening to the ABA antitrust list.
Jamie

- ------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:13:15 -0500
From: James Love <[email-masked]>
To: ABA Antrtrust List <[email-masked]>
Subject: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names

This is a question about antitrust actions involving private sector
"self governance" organizations.

ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  It is

a California Non-Profit organization, and is operating under a
memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Commerce that
might be terminated as early as this year (or might not, of course, if
DOC decides to extend it).

ICANN now controls the main root server for the Internet DNS system, the

thing that permits people to use names like www.usdoj.gov or www.ftc.gov

instead of numbers like 149.101.10.32 or 164.62.7.15.

The names are organized in a series of domains.  The top level domain
(TLD) is the last name in the string, such as .com, .org, .gov or .uk.
The next one is the second level domain, or SLD, and so on.  NTIA is the

third level domain in ntia.doc.gov.

Right now there are 244 2 digit country code top level domains (ccTLDs)
like .uk, .fr and .jp, and seven so called "generic" top level domains
(gTLDs), out of the country code space, of which only three are widely
available, .com, .net and .org.  All three of the generally available
gTLDs are manged by NSI, a firm that was recently sold for about $22
billion.

While several country TLDs have tried to compete against NSI for
registering domains, for the most part the action is in .com, a single
TLD.  IMO, this is because ccTLDs like .to, .de, .au etc are not
particularly well known,  intuitive or appealing.  The 2 letter limit
for ccTLDs is a also severe constraint.  (There are a few exceptions, of

course, like the .fm ccTLD which is marketed to fm radio stations, for
example).

For the public, the .com space is very overcrowded.  People are paying
huge sums to buy the rapidly dimminishing remaing regular names on the
.com space, and people apparently pay millions for generic names.  MSNBC

reported today that someone paid $38 million for cool.com.  I don't know

if this is a bona fide offer or not, but there are surly lots of high
priced sales, and many businesses, NGOs and individuals cannot buy the
names they want from .com, .net or .org.

Technically, the TLD space could be huge, perhaps as large as a million
TLDs with today's technology, and who knows how large later.

While anyone can set up a computer to run a TLD registry, very few
people will be able to find it, unless ICANN includes the TLD in the
main root.

Several years ago, the pre-ICANN authority proposed to create 150 new
TLDs, run by 50 new NSI competitors.  The main thing that stopped this
was the (big) trademark lobby.  There are also non-trivial but
resolvable issues concerning the policies associated with new TLDs.

Now ICANN is considering once again to expand the root, first with a 6
to 10 TLD testbest, and once that is done, perhaps a much larger
expansion.  We have called for the addition of thousand of new TLDs.
There is much demand for new TLDs.

Within the proposed new TLD space would be lots of types of new TLDs.
Some would be .com clones, like .inc, .biz, .web, .zone, .store. .firm,
.mall, etc.  Others would be particular to types of activity, such as
.software, .consultant, .sex, .usedcars, .flowers or .drugstore.  And
this is just scratching the surface.  There would also be a variety of
noncommercial TLDs, such as .union, .sucks, or .isnotfair, and lots of
different management styles, some unrestricted and some restricted.  For

example, .union might be controlled by labor unions, or .usbank might be

restricted to FDIC insured bands (an actual proposal by an FDIC
official).

All of this is being held up by a handful of big corporate trademark
lawyers, who have generally opposed adding new commerical TLDs.  These
by and large are firms that already have staked out or taken various
domains like att.com, mattel.com, pepsi.com, etc, and they don't want to

have to fight to protect their trademark name in thousands of new TLDs.

These trademark groups are saying they will block any new TLDs unless
their demands are met.  One current one is to create an open ended list
of "famous" names that would be reserved on new TLDs.  There are various

issues in these negotations, including such items as how many uses of a
"string" (use of a name) would be reserved.  For example, would
cokevpepsi.comparison be blocked?   Would boeing.union be reserved for
boeing?  Would Exxon.sucks be reserved for Exxon?   (There may be some
openess to consider non-commercial exceptions).

There is no legal basis for this type of reservation of famous
trademarks in the US or in nearly any country, and many of the proposed
reservations don't make any sense.  For example, why would ford motor
company be able to reserve ford.flowers, ford.plumbing or even
ford.foundation (not to mention ford.modeling)?  Why would one not have
lotus.cars, lotus.flowers and lotus.software, one ICANN participant
asked?

The trademark lobby is seeking to "own" a string across all TLD space on

the Internet, and of course, you can't blame them for trying.  But they
are seeking this not in a national legislature or through a treaty, but
through ICANN's control of the Internet's root.

The failure to expand the root is now beginning to have serious
anticompetive consequences, because new entrants are disadvantaged, by
not having very much space to find domains.  This is an artificial
regulatory scaricity, but largely by a private sector self regulation
body.

Would there be antitrust grounds to challenge a decision by ICANN to
place restrictions of the use of famous names?

 Jamie

- --
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176
[email-masked], http://www.cptech.org

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 10:01:12 -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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #41
***********************