From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #86 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, April 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 086 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:59:28 +0100 From: "Siegfried Langenbach" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT I agree. siegfried On 13 Apr 00, at 0:46, Greg Schuckman wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > > Before I cast my votes, let me state that Jonathan Weinberg posted on Monday > (and several times in the past) the list rules but they have been virtually > ignored. If this working group is to have any chance of being workable for > the time it has left, not to mention inclusive, there has to be enforcement > of the rules. Too often, the majority of us in the wg-c have been subject > to mass postings that should have been taken offline from the start. I did > not sign up to watch the saga unfold between a few members of the wg-c; I > signed up to participate in a dialogue about new gTLDs with a thoughtful > group of people from around the world on a rather important subject. > Jonathan, please, put an end to the static on this listserv and focus the > energies and attention of the wg-c as a whole on the subject at hand. > Enough said. > [...] > > Respectfully, > Greg Schuckman > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:26:22 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: History rewriting (Re: [wg-c] Consensus call) At 17:10 12.04.2000 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later >disclaimed), and > > have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. > >Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon >Postel >"disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. ungentlemen, please don't replay last month's "debate" from the GA list in this forum. I will AGAIN encourage you to PUT UP YOUR OPINION ON A WEB PAGE. All of you have a quite clear opinion on what the history was; your histories are incompatible, and too complex to fit in a single email message. Repeating the debate piecemeal on a new mailing list every other month helps nobody. Especially not yourselves; you're making even me consider killfiles. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:30:45 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" Brett I am a NYx voter. # 1 reads: "The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope." Problem1: This is to closely linked with the WG C report proposition that "initial rollout" means 6-10. As many on this list agree, charters work when there are many of them. Problem 2. As Keith Gymer wrote "open" TLDs may mean undifferentiated which returns us to the argument over what constitutes strong competition to dot com - imitation or value added. Philip. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:44:07 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not posting) aren't > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs that you self >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced >standing to. Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in accordance with Request For Comments 1591." What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore loser because you can't have your own ccTLD? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:54:47 +1200 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open >TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. > > NO. I think the initial rollout should be all generic TLDs and the introduction of chartered TLD's at this time may just complicate (and delay!) matters unnecessarily. I would favour the introduction of chartered TLD's *after* the initial rollout. >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical >constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of >the following principles : > NO. Although I think these criteria are well intentioned, I see great potential for controversy about their interpretation. Their adoption will not be helpful for the rollout of gTLD's. >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop >policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. > NO. It is too early for policy development when the IETF has not yet addressed the technical end of tackling this issue. - --Joop-- www.idno.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:49:03 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call At 09:01 PM 4/12/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: We know what the NSF position is on RFC1591 submissions. Exactly what is the WG-C policy on RFC1591 submissions? Maybe that info will solve the problem. > Um . . . folks . . . speaking as the WG co-chair, I think that we've >beaten the "what happened in 1995" topic to death. If you must continue >this argument, please do it off-list. > >Jon > >At 05:10 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >> Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later > >disclaimed), and > >> have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. > > > >Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon > >Postel "disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. > > > >Thanks much, > > > >Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:39:49 +0200 From: Annie Renard Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. YES - only chartered TLD PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. NO - not yet, currently an IETF technical issue - --- Annie Renard [nic@nic.fr] AFNIC/NIC France c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France http://www.nic.fr/ Personal Email: Annie.Renard@nic.fr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:11:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: >> But please stop trying to rewrite history and put meaning or intention >> into Postel's actions, when it's clear from his own writings that he felt >> otherwise. > > I'm not rewriting history, Chris, you and Simon are trying to. I'm just > calling you on it. > Why don't you guys call each other on it via private email? You're bringing the S/N ratio up to INEG levels. - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:39:28 -0400 From: "Timothy Denton" Subject: [wg-c] I agree with Shuckman This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BFA534.8B668F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear colleagues: I wish to add my approval to Mr. Shuckman's comments, and to encourage the Chairman to act so as to reduce the amount of personal, off-topic, irrelevant, ill-humoured, spiteful or generally excessive postings by a small coterie of people who, joined by mututal hate, clearly do not have enough useful work to do. Timothy Denton, BA, BCL tmdenton.com Telecom and Internet Law and Policy 37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 5V6 phone: 1-613-789-5397 tmdenton@magma.ca fax: 789-5398 www.tmdenton.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Siegfried Langenbach Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:59 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT I agree. siegfried On 13 Apr 00, at 0:46, Greg Schuckman wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > > Before I cast my votes, let me state that Jonathan Weinberg posted on Monday > (and several times in the past) the list rules but they have been virtually > ignored. If this working group is to have any chance of being workable for > the time it has left, not to mention inclusive, there has to be enforcement > of the rules. Too often, the majority of us in the wg-c have been subject > to mass postings that should have been taken offline from the start. I did > not sign up to watch the saga unfold between a few members of the wg-c; I > signed up to participate in a dialogue about new gTLDs with a thoughtful > group of people from around the world on a rather important subject. > Jonathan, please, put an end to the static on this listserv and focus the > energies and attention of the wg-c as a whole on the subject at hand. > Enough said. > [...] > > Respectfully, > Greg Schuckman > > - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BFA534.8B668F20 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Timothy M. Denton.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Timothy M. Denton.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Denton;Timothy;M. FN:Timothy M. Denton ORG:tmdenton.com TITLE:principal TEL;WORK;VOICE:1-613-789-5397 TEL;HOME;VOICE:1-613-789=3D-5397 TEL;WORK;FAX:1-613-789-5398 TEL;HOME;FAX:1-613-789-5398 ADR;WORK:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=3D0D=3D0AOttawa, = Ontario K1N 5V6=3D0D=3D0ACanada ADR;HOME:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=3DQUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=3D0D=3D0AOttawa, = Ontario K1N 5V6=3D0D=3D0ACanada URL: URL:http://www.tmdenton.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:tmdenton@magma.ca REV:20000410T212421Z END:VCARD - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BFA534.8B668F20-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:07:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] I-D ACTION:draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt (fwd) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. - --NextPart Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 06:53:37 -0400 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: iab@isi.edu Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Architecture Board Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Tangled Web: issues of I18N, domain names, and the other Internet protocols Author(s) : L. Daigle Filename : draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt Pages : Date : 12-Apr-00 The goals of the work to 'internationalize' Internet protocols include providing all users of the Internet with the capability of using their own language and its standard character set to express themselves, write names, and to navigate the network. This impacts the domain names visible in e-mail addresses and so many of today's URLs used to locate information on the World Wide Web, etc. However, domain names are used by Internet protocols that are used across national boundaries. These services must interoperate worldwide, or we risk isolating components of the network from each other along locale boundaries. This type of isolation could impede not only communications among people, but opportunities of the areas involved to participate effectively in e-commerce, distance learning, and other activities at an international scale, thereby retarding economic development. There are several proposals for internationalizing domain names, however it it is still to be determined whether any of them will ensure this interoperability and global reach while addressing visible-name representation. Some of them obviously do not. This document does not attempt to review any specific proposals, as that is the work of the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Working Group of the IETF, which is tasked with evaluating them in consideration of the continued global network interoperation that is the deserved expectation of all Internet users. This document elaborates the scope of the problem outside of the domain name system (DNS). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. - --NextPart Content-Type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY=OtherAccess Content-ID: Content-Description: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. - --OtherAccess Content-Type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; ACCESS-TYPE=mail-server; SERVER="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-ID: - --OtherAccess Content-Type: MESSAGE/EXTERNAL-BODY; NAME="draft-iab-i18n-dns-00.txt"; SITE="ftp.ietf.org"; ACCESS-TYPE=anon-ftp; DIRECTORY=internet-drafts Content-ID: - --OtherAccess-- - --NextPart-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:13:03 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" Philip -- Thanks for the response. Questions below. Philip Sheppard wrote: > I am a NYx voter. # 1 reads: > "The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open > TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope." > > Problem1: > This is to closely linked with the WG C report proposition that "initial > rollout" means 6-10. As many on this list agree, charters work when there > are many of them. I don't understand the second sentence that states "charters work when there are many of them." And while I understand the prior sentence, I'm not so certain about your meaning when I read the paragraph as a whole. > Problem 2. > As Keith Gymer wrote "open" TLDs may mean undifferentiated which returns us > to the argument over what constitutes strong competition to dot com - > imitation or value added. But open TLDs will not be undifferentiated if the S/K principles are implemented. So I read your vote as a hedge against the possibility that we cannot find consensus on #2. Won't passage of the S/K principles make possible the addition of numerous new gTLDs, with varied business models and purposes? Assuming a gTLD passes the S/K principles, why would it matter whether it was open or chartered, or operated by a for-profit, non-profit, or shared registry? Do you view the S/K principles as foreclosing any of those options? Thanks. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:32:58 -0700 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at IANA/ICANN. Sorry. Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon > Higgs > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: > > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not > posting) aren't > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. > > > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs > that you self > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced > >standing to. > > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in > accordance with Request For Comments 1591." > > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore > loser because > you can't have your own ccTLD? > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:40:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call As part of a set of private warning messages I've sent out over the past couple of days, I've told two list members that further postings on this played-out topic were grounds for temporary suspension from the list. So none of you should take their silence for acquiescence . . . (And I'd appreciate it if anybody else who wants to post on this matter, humorously or otherwise, do so off-list as well. Thanks.) Jon On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Josh Elliott wrote: > I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at > IANA/ICANN. > > Sorry. > > Josh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon > > Higgs > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM > > To: wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > > > > > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: > > > > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not > > posting) aren't > > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. > > > > > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's > > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs > > that you self > > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced > > >standing to. > > > > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD > > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF > > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > > > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg > > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in > > accordance with Request For Comments 1591." > > > > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore > > loser because > > you can't have your own ccTLD? > > > > Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:17:02 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call At 08:32 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote: hostmaster@internic.net (InterNIC/NSI) has the RFC1591 records too. These are also under Federal contract. "Lost" is not an option. >I believe that "file" was lost some time ago and is no longer on file at >IANA/ICANN. > >Sorry. > >Josh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon > > Higgs > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:44 AM > > To: wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > > > > > At 04:49 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: > > > > >On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > > > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not > > posting) aren't > > > > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. > > > > > >No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's > > >attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs > > that you self > > >claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced > > >standing to. > > > > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD > > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. The NSF > > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > > > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg > > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in > > accordance with Request For Comments 1591." > > > > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore > > loser because > > you can't have your own ccTLD? > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:30:33 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] wg-c list management Oki all, I'm of two or three minds on the subject. WG-C has as a working group been deeply disfunctional for ages, there is no shortage of guilty parties, but we may be within days of being thanked for all of our efforts and released. This is a working group, so how do lurkers help anyone but themselves make progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems? I don't think they can, so purging the list periodically of the dead, the zombies, and even the crypto-voters ("YES on Question Foobar, no comments") is a process question others may consider -- I'm sure there is another point of view, but it won't be one of the lurkers who makes the best arguement to "Save the Zombies" This is a working group, so how does rearguing issues that don't arise from this WG, or from its charter, or even from the ICANN historical period, make progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems? I don't think they can, so redirecting content to off-list venues is another process question others may consider -- I'm sure there is another point of view, but quite honestly I don't want to see "Raising Postel" ever, anywhere. This is a working group, so how does acceptance of or tolerence for false claims or proofs-by-assertion or general dishonesty make progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems? I don't think they can, so another process question for others to consider is how to help co-list-workers keep their feet on or near honest means of pursuasion and advocacy? I'm sure there is another point of view, but is it honestly held? Finally, this is a DNSO NC authorized working group, so how does indifference towards the liaison relationship, or the process, or the work product, make progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems? I don't think they can, so another process question for others to consider is how to help the DNSO NC understand that they have a duty to act, and to act consistent with the charter and their needs and ours, when need arises? I am again sure that there is another point of view, but the utility of "WG-C Abandoned" escapes me. The problem we face isn't easy. Our process is one of our tools to work on the problem. Because this has been long and quite trying some of the people who are overheated (and you know who you are) may want to take a break. What I suggest is that you let Jon (or I) know that you are taking a break, that you haven't however abandoned your interest or your advocacy position, and delegate your "voice" to someone you trust to represent your views as well, or better, than you can at present. If we're done you risk nothing, if we're not done you risk nothing, and in both cases the list is improved. There is one class of people who should not be on this list -- people with the problems Jim Flemming or Jeff Williams suffer with, people who can't be happy without conflict -- people who need adversaries. Kitakitamatsinopowaw, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > At 08:32 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote: > > hostmaster@internic.net (InterNIC/NSI) has the RFC1591 records too. > > These are also under Federal contract. "Lost" is not an option. Wrong. The only valid requests under RFC1591 were for ccTLDs. There was no federal contract for new gTLDs. - - -- William X. Walsh 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/ iD8DBQE49ghr8zLmV94Pz+IRAjQOAJ9OlVbWYfv06dwqSfXzCtQOTPxJZgCcDgNz WaWGF+ezbwnvjA/hca5VCPI= =YnhA - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:58:28 -0700 From: "Kit Winter" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. NO Kit Winter kwinter@itninc.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:59:07 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call I thought this topic was taboo here? I'm not going to reply, but I'd request that the edict be applied to EVERYONE. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William X. Walsh" To: "Simon Higgs" Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 10:48 AM Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 13-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > > At 08:32 AM 4/13/00 -0700, Josh Elliott wrote: > > > > hostmaster@internic.net (InterNIC/NSI) has the RFC1591 records too. > > > > These are also under Federal contract. "Lost" is not an option. > > > Wrong. > > The only valid requests under RFC1591 were for ccTLDs. There was no federal > contract for new gTLDs. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > 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/ > > iD8DBQE49ghr8zLmV94Pz+IRAjQOAJ9OlVbWYfv06dwqSfXzCtQOTPxJZgCcDgNz > WaWGF+ezbwnvjA/hca5VCPI= > =YnhA > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 100 14:13:35 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call Simon Higgs wrote: > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wow, that's a bit rich... If so, then (as it's legally binding), any court will automatically allow those into the legacy roots no doubt, so we have no further need to discuss it, just wait for the positive outcome from your lawsuits (still waiting...). > The NSF > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered: > > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in > accordance with Request For Comments 1591." It's nice and easy to quote one liners that can help towards ones own goal, and forget about the whole context of the phrase within a letter (and I'm NOT trying to second guess anyone). In any case, we could say that RFC-1591 has been applied flawlessly so far, as we have from RFC-1591: - --- 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. - --- The phrase (within context) to note carefully being the last one. If we decide that RFC-1591 should be followed, then we have extreme unlikelyness that other TLDs will be created. Also, another point within RFC-1591 (accepting that "extremely unlikely" does mean "relevantly possible") is: - --- 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party. - --- And *THERE* we would probably all agree is what we've been fighting over for the past few years, in finding a way to designate the appropiate party(ies) as manager(s) of any new TLD(s). RFC-1591 doesn't talk about FCFS. FCFS was(is?) generally used by the hostmaster@internic.net robot but for com/net/org registrations. As non-ccTLDs (as indicated by RFC-1591) are extremely unlikely, a lot of fuzzy nice things have to happen, no *clear* procedures were available (RFC-1591 says in various places to forget about rights and ownership, which is precisely what entities like IOD want to talk about: the rights and ownership of the TLDs), and forums were being created precisely to discuss these issues, then (in light of that) it is understandable that the requests were queued. In fact it would have even been understandable for them to have been dumped all together!!! FCFS would come into play if significant parties agreed that both requesters were equal (my opinion). As yet, WG-C doesn't seem to agree on who should be the designated manager for any given TLD, and I'd say that we could consider WG-C as a group of interested parties. So, in that light RFC-1591 would not allow for any delegations yet (ever?). Where is the problem? > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore loser because > you can't have your own ccTLD? You can't on the one hand say "let's apply RFC-1591" and just pick and choose which parts you want to apply. Either you apply it whole, or you discard it whole, or you draft a new document keeping the bits you want and adding/discarding other (and then it is -of course- no longer RFC-1591). Have fun, but I don't read RFC-1591 as being "legally binding" nor even if it were do I read it in such a manner that would say that Simon Higgs gets the TLDs he wants. Enjoy. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #86 *************************