Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #49
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 4 2000            Volume 01 : Number 049

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

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:51:39 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

At 08:16 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>The link was posted by someone else.

How strange that it slipped by unnoticed.

Please cite the message that posted it.  This list has a public archive, so 
it should be easy to locate.

On the other hand, Chris, the assertion of "specifically disclaimed" came 
from you, so the reference to source material must be known to you.

Is it really that difficult to provide?

d/

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 7:02 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations
>
>
>Chris,
>
>At 10:41 AM 4/1/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >Strawn's participation on the IAHC was specifically disclaimed by
> >the NSF as being Strawn's personal participation and having no
> >bearing on the NSF in any way.
>
>So, no documentation is forthcoming which indicates specifically where and
>when NSF "specifically disclaimed" Strawn's participation?
>
>In other words, NSF did NOT make the disclaimer.
>
>It was just wishful thinking, creative interpretation, overstatement of the
>facts, or...?
>
>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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:15:13 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

All the while Dave ignores the request for him to do the same. Because
he cannot.

Dave, the link was to the FNC, which had all of the information you're
looking for. I also invite you to take a look at Mr. Strawn's postings,
which held that he was speaking for himself and not NSF. Furthermore,
NSF has never endorsed his participation. You implied otherwise.

Please provide that evidence.

I will wager $100 that Dave never does. Any takers?

- --
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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

Dave Crocker writes:
 > At 08:16 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
 > >The link was posted by someone else.
 > Please cite the message that posted it.  This list has a public
 > archive, so it should be easy to locate.

OK, I looked up the reference on http://www.fnc.gov/ and this is the
statement that I found there:

	Following U.S. Government lead, the Federal Networking Council
	(FNC) has no policy concerning the IAHC proposal. The FNC
	Co-Chair, George Strawn, participated in the IAHC, and the FNC
	continues to encourage open discussion on domain name
	registration.

 > On the other hand, Chris, the assertion of "specifically disclaimed" came 
 > from you, so the reference to source material must be known to you.

So, Chris, apparantly you never actually checked for yourself to see
what was on the fnc page!  There is nowhere on the site a "disclaimer"
or "disavowal" of george Strawn's role on the IAHC as FNC
representative.  Instead, there is an *affirmation* of his role as
representative of the FNC and a position of "no policy" on the IAHC as a
whole.  All in all, Chris, you are wrong in your assertions.

/Joe
- --
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 08:42:10 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

At 08:46 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>a link has been provided, it's your turn to back up your

Pointing someone to an organizational homepage is not a way of 
substantiating a claim of specific content.

Even better is that a search of the cited pages only contains positive 
statements about Strawn and the IAHC.

Try again.

At 10:23 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>I remember something my brother told me after being
>released from the hospital for x-rays when members of
>the opposing football team had flattened him quite
>severely. I asked him, "hey, are you planning to get back
>at them?" He said, "No, they lost the game."

It would have been helpful if you had remembered that anecdote before 
making the false claim about NSF disavowel.

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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:57:55 -0400
From: Craig Simon <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Folks,

Here's a useful link that touches on the sequence of events leading to George
Strawn's invitation to serve on the IAHC.

http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html

Note the line, "NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee."

Clearly they did, and Don Heath responded by appointing Stawn. The NSF/FNC's
motivation (and the activity) may have been primarily monitory, but the words in
the document say representation. Point to Dave Crocker.

To be fair to Chris Ambler and Simon Higgs, it's not altogther clear whether, in
the IAHC meetings, Strawn represented himself as holding the formal office of a
US agent, or whether he explicitly disavowed that role. Chris says he did, but I
can't find any evidence of that. I'm open to pointers. ("Check the archives"
doesn't cut it.)

Also, Joe Kelsey's find that the FNC  "continues to encourage open discussion on
domain name registration" is certainly no disclaimer, I agree, but it's not a
ringing endorsement of the IAHC either. 

I'd like to know what Mr. Strawn says now with regard to these issues. What did
he report back to the FNC? Perhaps this time around he will respond to my
request for an interview. I last tried for one in early June 1998. Perhaps the
email address I'm using for him ([email-masked]) is no good. If anyone has a
suggestion (or his phone#) please let me know.

Craig Simon
- --
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:24:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

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

On 03-Apr-2000 Joe Kelsey wrote:
>  > On the other hand, Chris, the assertion of "specifically disclaimed" came 
>  > from you, so the reference to source material must be known to you.
> 
> So, Chris, apparantly you never actually checked for yourself to see
> what was on the fnc page!  There is nowhere on the site a "disclaimer"
> or "disavowal" of george Strawn's role on the IAHC as FNC
> representative.  Instead, there is an *affirmation* of his role as
> representative of the FNC and a position of "no policy" on the IAHC as a
> whole.  All in all, Chris, you are wrong in your assertions.

Wrong.  Dave implied that Strawn's participation was a tacit endorsement of the
IAHC's legitimacy.  This is false.  Chris is right on this issue.

There have been other disclaimers, that have since been removed since the issue
is no longer considered a timely one.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE46UQw8zLmV94Pz+IRAtv4AKCDg9MHsGq3LraAvHH/8NMxeqxmFQCaAlMJ
gNJan4T8GwsIGa2GYe4Hf2Y=
=QoIX
- -----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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:40:46 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FNC statement

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:24:00PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> On 03-Apr-2000 Joe Kelsey wrote:
> >  > On the other hand, Chris, the assertion of "specifically disclaimed" came 
> >  > from you, so the reference to source material must be known to you.
> > 
> > So, Chris, apparantly you never actually checked for yourself to see
> > what was on the fnc page!  There is nowhere on the site a "disclaimer"
> > or "disavowal" of george Strawn's role on the IAHC as FNC
> > representative.  Instead, there is an *affirmation* of his role as
> > representative of the FNC and a position of "no policy" on the IAHC as a
> > whole.  All in all, Chris, you are wrong in your assertions.
> 
> Wrong.  Dave implied that Strawn's participation was a tacit
> endorsement of the IAHC's legitimacy.  This is false.  Chris is right on
> this issue. 

It *was* a tacit endorsement of IAHC's legitimacy -- there is no other 
way you can interpret it.  The fact that the USG changed directions 
later can't change that.  Interestingly enough, the fnc web site also 
demonstrates fairly clearly where the resistance was coming from -- at 
the April 97 FNCAC meeting, we find that NSI is now making its own 
proposal in opposition to the IAHC...

> There have been other disclaimers, that have since been removed since
> the issue is no longer considered a timely one. 

Oh.  Sure. Of course.  Actually, that entire web site hasn't been 
updated since Oct 1997.

- -- 
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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:26:42 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

You are making the assumption that my assertion is based on that
page. It is not.

Dave insinuated that the NSF endorsed the IAHC. I said that they
did not, and indeed specifically said that they did not. Dave
has asked me to provide evidence. I have asked Dave to provide
evidence. Since Dave made his claim first, I would like to see
his evidence.

Since Dave doesn't have any, he is trying, instead, to play a
nice word game and force the burden of proof upon me.

So let's make this easy: Oops. I screwed up. I guess they didn't
disclaim it. Looks like they just said that they have no policy.
My bad. Very sorry.

Okay, Dave, your turn.

- -- 
Christopher Ambler
[email-masked]

	Following U.S. Government lead, the Federal Networking Council
	(FNC) has no policy concerning the IAHC proposal. The FNC
	Co-Chair, George Strawn, participated in the IAHC, and the FNC
	continues to encourage open discussion on domain name
	registration.

- --
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FNC statement

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

On 04-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
>> There have been other disclaimers, that have since been removed since
>> the issue is no longer considered a timely one. 
> 
> Oh.  Sure. Of course.  Actually, that entire web site hasn't been 
> updated since Oct 1997.

What website, Kent?  I wasn't restricting the disclaimers to the FNC site. 
There have been other such disclaimers, I remember reading them years ago on
other USG sites.  The USG and those acting on its behalf NEVER legitimized or
endorsed the IAHC work as legitimate.

If you can provide proof that they did, I'd sure love to see it.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE46X358zLmV94Pz+IRAk4cAKDnchFLA5NRVM5hJVpFEXk0tvTpmACbBTFP
dhePkfCY3rQrLR/MZsHWzCk=
=GX3z
- -----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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 22:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Some interesting notes from the US Congress Subcommittee on Technology

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

From:
http://www.house.gov/science/charter_br_10-07.htm
October 7, 1998

APPENDIX

INTERNET BACKGROUND--How the Domain Name System Works:

Computers on the Internet are identified through a numbering scheme that
designates their location on the network. To provide users with an easy-to-use
addressing convention that
corresponds to the specific location numbers, the Domain Name System (DNS) was
created. Domain names are broken into layers. Top level domains (TLDs)
represent either an
individual country (e.g. jp = Japan) or a generic grouping (gTLDs), (i.e.,
.com, .gov, .edu, .net, .org, and .mil). The second level domain name that
appears to the left of the gTLD in the
address provides the specific name of the entity (e.g., cnn.com).

Initially, the Department of Defense was responsible for the early versions of
the Internet and the Defense Information Systems Agency?s Network Information
Center (DISA NIC)
registered domain names. Subsequently, non-military registration was supported
by NSF because of their role in the civilian NSFNET and related Internet
activities. In 1992, NSF put
out a solicitation for network information services managers for the NSFNET,
including provision of registration services. The result was a five year
cooperative agreement between
NSF and Network Solutions Inc. (NSI), a Herndon, Virginia-based engineering and
management consulting firm. The cooperative agreement between NSF and NSI was
to expire at
the end of March 1998, but was extended up to the end of September of 1998.

NSI registers all the second level domain names under .com, .edu, .org, and
.net. It does this by matching each domain name to a specific IP number. The IP
numbers are provided by
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) which currently is funded by
DARPA through a contract with the University of Southern California's
Information Science Institute.

IANA controls the allocation of all of the Internet?s IP numbers. The IP number
and the domain name are maintained in nameserver computers located at various
points throughout the
Internet. A set of nine master root servers provide daily updates to the data
base and serve as the pointers to nameserver computers in seeking the location
of an address contained in
the data base.

IANA?s duties also include coordinating the assignment and use of various
Internet protocol parameters, managing the IP address space, and managing
specific domain names issues.
Its specific role in domain names involves making technical decisions on the
location of root servers, assessing the qualifications of applicants to manage
country code top level
domains, and evaluating additions to established top level domains that may be
proposed.

- - -------------
Another interesting note:
The Proposals: A consensus that the U.S. Government should no longer manage the
day-to-day management functions of the DNS has existed for a few years, and a
series of
unsuccessful proposals on how to transfer the DNS to the private sector have
been circulated. Initially, a group of private sector Internet professionals,
known as the Internet Ad Hoc
Committee, presented a proposal. After this proposal failed to gain the
widespread approval of the Internet community, the Clinton Administration, in
February of 1998, published a
proposal--known as the "Green Paper"
- - -------------

Interesting reading. 

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE46YLF8zLmV94Pz+IRAk7QAJ0Rd1Cr5ByEKwkKYelaVPoawByIdwCffWgo
XSe5vKHc9EzTiymHzOptg5w=
=JUzL
- -----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: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:09:39 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 08:57 PM 4/3/00 -0400, Craig Simon wrote:
>Note the line, "NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
>representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc Advisory
>Committee."
>...
>To be fair to Chris Ambler and Simon Higgs, it's not altogther clear 
>whether, in
>the IAHC meetings, Strawn represented himself as holding the formal office 
>of a
>US agent, or whether he explicitly disavowed that role. Chris says he did, 
>but I

Within the IAHC meetings, those of us who came from the Internet technical 
community pretty forcefully declared no representation other than as 
members of the Internet technical community.

Those with formal positions in WIPO, INTA, and ITU were quite explicitly 
representing their organizations, although only the INTA participants put 
that forward formally.  On the other hand, the WIPO and ITU representatives 
periodically checked with their management about one or another issue being 
discussed.  That constitutes pretty explicit formal representation, in my view.

As is typical in committees, some participants are more active than 
others.  George was not in the top level of being active.  However, he 
attended some meetings and made some very constructive suggestions.  He did 
not speak explicitly and formally of representing NSF or FNC.

>I'd like to know what Mr. Strawn says now with regard to these issues. 
>What did

As nearly as I can tell, the NSF just wishes this would all go away.  They 
have been pretty rigorously silent on the matter, for several years now.

d/

ps.  I believe that there was a note on this thread claiming that I was the 
'leader' of the IAHC.  Don Heath was the chair.  I was editor of the IAHC's 
report.  At various times, almost every member of the IAHC took a turn at 
running a portion of the committee's work.

=-=-=-=-=
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: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:16:44 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

Chris,

At 09:26 PM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>You are making the assumption that my assertion is based on that
>page. It is not.

Since you have repeatedly failed to provide the phantom citation that DOES 
support your claim of explicit disavowal, we poor souls are left with 
little choice but to make guesses.

(Well, yes, there is also the choice of dismissing your claim entirely and 
we probably should have done that long ago, but for your continuing claim 
that the citation no one has seen does exist.)

>Dave insinuated that the NSF endorsed the IAHC. I said that they
>did not, and indeed specifically said that they did not. Dave

"...specifically said that they did not..."

Once again, Chris:  Where and when?  A specific citation will go far 
towards resolving this curiously protracted question.

Vocabulary lesson:

         As pleasing as the sound of "insinuate" might be, it is an 
incorrect usage in this context.

         From  the American Heritage Dictionary:  "To introduce or 
otherwise convey gradually and insidiously".

         The statement of mine that you are challenging, Chris, was simple, 
direct and singular.  Nothing gradual or "insidious" about it.  Please try 
less inflammatory and more accurate vocabulary.

>has asked me to provide evidence. I have asked Dave to provide
>evidence. Since Dave made his claim first, I would like to see his evidence.

For reference, my statement was simple and factually correct.  I said no 
more than the facts.  The statement I made is clearly and simply documented.

Strawn was a senior staff member of NSF -- I had forgotten that he also 
chaired FNC, which frankly is far more important -- and indeed he was; and 
he was a member of the IAHC.  I offered the fact of his participation as 
significant.  It is.

By contrast, dear Chris, you made a simple and direct claim that has yet to 
find any substantiation.

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: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

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

On 04-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> By contrast, dear Chris, you made a simple and direct claim that has yet to 
> find any substantiation.

Flatly, you are wrong Dave.  It has been substantiated.  You are just doing
your usual game of ignoring it so you can pretend it doesn't exist.

But that's ok, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has just grown to expect it by
now. 

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE46bVa8zLmV94Pz+IRAvOEAJ9eKnIfUT6/PipPNawrJvdPLvds5gCffbio
H8bscMv9K3qdqbs/wN3OTSE=
=WhIN
- -----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: Tue,  4 Apr 2000 11:34:24 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

Craig is providing in his analysis below the best explanation on why 
this debate will be endless, i.e. because there is some truth and some 
inexactitude in both statements made so far.

IMHO, USG participated initially in the IAHC with the intention of 
providing USG POV in the matter (and therefore with somebody in an 
"official" capacity - what's the point otherwise in having somebody at 
that high level instead of an obscure clerk?), but as always happens in 
political situations, USG never made an open statement that could engage
 it in the decisions of the IAHC.

This turned out handy when USG changed attitude (whether this was 
because of NSi's lobbying, or whether this was because of genuine 
concerns about IAHC not reaching consensus is beyond this debate - and 
please do not start this other one, because it will be endless as well).

USG therefore stepped out, starting a new process, with the Green Paper,
 and from there we went, little by little, to these days.

So it turns out that there will not be any "formal" proofs of the 
initial attitude of USG, because a formal statement of support of the 
IAHC has never been issued, in spite of the participation at the highest
 level, and there will not be any "formal" proofs of the "disawowement" 
of USG of the IAHC, because the "political" formulation for doing this 
is just that IAHC did not reach consensus of the community.

But feel free to insist to mutually ask for proofs, just be aware that 
few people are still listening. Why? Beacuse whatever the situation in 
the past, now the ball is clearly in ICANN's court, and how to influence
 ICANN's opinion on the subject is more important than go back to 
remember how nice (or bad) the good ol' times were.

Regards
Roberto

>Folks,
>
>Here's a useful link that touches on the sequence of events leading to 
George
>Strawn's invitation to serve on the IAHC.
>
>http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_10_96_minutes.html
>
>Note the line, "NSF/FNC should contact ISOC concerning US government
>representation on the Internet Society's International Ad Hoc Advisory
>Committee."
>
>Clearly they did, and Don Heath responded by appointing Stawn. The NSF/
FNC's
>motivation (and the activity) may have been primarily monitory, but the
 words in
>the document say representation. Point to Dave Crocker.
>
>To be fair to Chris Ambler and Simon Higgs, it's not altogther clear 
whether, in
>the IAHC meetings, Strawn represented himself as holding the formal 
office of a
>US agent, or whether he explicitly disavowed that role. Chris says he 
did, but I
>can't find any evidence of that. I'm open to pointers. ("Check the 
archives"
>doesn't cut it.)
>
>Also, Joe Kelsey's find that the FNC  "continues to encourage open 
discussion on
>domain name registration" is certainly no disclaimer, I agree, but it's
 not a
>ringing endorsement of the IAHC either. 
>
>I'd like to know what Mr. Strawn says now with regard to these issues. 
What did
>he report back to the FNC? Perhaps this time around he will respond to 
my
>request for an interview. I last tried for one in early June 1998. 
Perhaps the
>email address I'm using for him ([email-masked]) is no good. If anyone
 has a
>suggestion (or his phone#) please let me know.
>
>Craig Simon
>--
>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: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:16:47 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FNC statement

At 04:47 PM 4/3/00 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:

>Dave Crocker writes:
>  > At 08:16 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>  > >The link was posted by someone else.
>  > Please cite the message that posted it.  This list has a public
>  > archive, so it should be easy to locate.
>
>OK, I looked up the reference on http://www.fnc.gov/ and this is the
>statement that I found there:
>
>         Following U.S. Government lead, the Federal Networking Council
>         (FNC) has no policy concerning the IAHC proposal. The FNC
>         Co-Chair, George Strawn, participated in the IAHC, and the FNC
>         continues to encourage open discussion on domain name
>         registration.

Cute. This is government-speak for "I'm not ready to put my career on the 
line for this by creating a supporting policy statement." The intention is 
that if the IAHC bombs, NSF was neutral (without the stigma of failure), 
but if the IAHC succeeds NSF will take the credit. Otherwise known as 
hedging a bet.

Makes you wonder just how bad it really got for the USG to actually intervene.

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: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 20:46:45 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 11:34 AM 4/4/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Craig is providing in his analysis below the best explanation on why
>this debate will be endless, i.e. because there is some truth and some
>inexactitude in both statements made so far.

that sort of assessment is often true.

unfortunately, people inclined to make unreasonable claims know that 
reasonable people will take this "truth is somewhere in the middle" 
approach, even when the approach does not work.

That is, they rely on their unreasonable statements being assumed to have 
some reasonableness to them.

>IMHO, USG participated initially in the IAHC with the intention of
>providing USG POV in the matter (and therefore with somebody in an

While it would be understandable and reasonable for the government to 
participate on such terms, what evidence do you have that that was their 
intent?

Over roughly the nine months of IAHC work, before Magaziner shot us down, I 
heard no such cautionary or arms-length statements from the 
government.  Yes, I did note that the public statements from them were 
wonderfully neutral and very much was concerned that they would pull the 
rug out from under us if they deemed it convenient.  However others who I 
thought far more politically experienced than I kept assuring us that we 
were getting their support.

>"official" capacity - what's the point otherwise in having somebody at
>that high level instead of an obscure clerk?), but as always happens in

The other reason is to add that much more credibility to the process.

In other words, far less than "listening" and "commenting, as you suggest, 
is the role of supporting.  (In addition to listening and commenting, of 
course.)  That was certainly the basis of Strawn's presence that I understood.

>But feel free to insist to mutually ask for proofs, just be aware that
>few people are still listening.

Indeed, I again let one of these threads become protracted in order to see 
whether a bald statement of fact that I knew to be untrue would produce any 
substance to support it.  Since none has been forthcoming, I will add 
yet-another filter to my email.

Missing the postings of such erroneous claims makes it less likely that 
they will succeed in causing further distractions.

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: Tue,  4 Apr 2000 19:36:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

Simon Higgs wrote:
>
>I like the analogy, but what "happened yesterday" does not overlap with
 
>pre-history. ICANN has recently started the accreditation of registrars
, 
>and opened competition to NSI at that level. Pre-history, as you call 
it, 
>is the prior TLD application(s) to IANA, via the sanctioned RFC1591 
>process, to create new TLDs in the root, and authorize and delegate 
these 
>new TLDs to new registries (i.e. back-end registries to registrars, 
further 
>opening competition, etc.). This has not been done.

Right.
And, IMHO, it will never be done this way.

Some applications were gathered (BTW, for which Jon pointed out that no 
guarantee for further processing could be granted), and set aside 
waiting for the definition of the process.
By the time IANA lost (supposing it ever had) authority to delegate 
gTLDs, that process was not defined. Now a process may be defined (we 
all hope so), but IANA will not be the delegating authority.

Before getting again into debate about continuity, may I ask whether the
 GA finds *really* reasonable that delegation of gTLDs will be done 
simply with a FIFS process picking from that chronological list, or 
whether other considerations should apply?
An example.
ICANN has defined accreditation mechanisms for Registrars.
It is, IMHO, very likely that we have to define criteria for 
accreditation of Registries, that will include guarantees about 
financial solidity, for instance, notwithstanding possible 
considerations about geographical distribution.
These, IMHO, are going to be considerations that will have much more 
weight than an ordered list at IANA's.

To make a practical example, IODesign will be much better off in being 
able to prove to be serious about running the .web Registry (which I 
believe they do) than in relying (only) on "prior" claim (BTW, I am 
under the impression that IOD was not the first anyhow - so I assume 
that Chris will agree on this point).
Please check that list, and you will find it full of absurde claims made
 without substance, sometimes in bulk because in any case to make such a
 claim did not cost much more than the use of some bandwidth.
To be in that list *may* be considered an element by ICANN when making a
 decision, but I am pretty sure that this will not be the main one, and 
probably not even a required one.

In the meantime, things are progressing.
Somebody may have noticed the GAC recommendations on gTLDs contained in 
their Cairo communique, for instance.

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue,  4 Apr 2000 20:15:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

Kent, Joop,

Kent wrote:
>> 
>> Instead it chose to ignore the petition altogether.
>
>There are lots of open questions about this issue...the GA, the At-
Large
>membership of ICANN, the proposal for an "at-large" constituency, etc. 
 
>

Right.

Can we start addressing these?

How do we see the role of individuals, that can join the AtLarge 
Membership (and therefore vote on BoD) but not have any representativity
 in DNS matters?
Can we restart the debate about a constituency for Individual Domain 
Name Holders?

This thread was statrted by Harald, trying to relaunch the debate about 
the definition of GA Membership, essential before we can define voting 
procedures. May I also remind that a vote is due at the end of this 
month on the list rules. How can we effectively perform this vote in 
absence of a clear definition of (and agreement upon) the voting body 
(i.e. the Membership)?

Regards
Roberto
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #49
***********************