[ga-full] Re: [ga] Older registrations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Simon, Roberto and all assembly members,

  Simon has given an essentially a very good brief history run-down here
for your Roberto.  But of course, had you done your homework some time
ago now, you would already know this.

  In addition, Jon Postel had many discussions off-line or privately with quite
a number of people.  I was one of those.  He became disenchanted with
the IAHC and CORE about mid-stream and very concerned with the
ISOC's Don Heath which he shared with me on several phone conversations
and E-Mails.  I have the recordings and archived E-Mails.  Someday, I am
sure they will be useful evidence and interesting historical documents.

Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 11:23 PM 3/20/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >Simon Higgs wrote:
> > >In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
> > >laid out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and published
> > >the results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at www.gtld-mou.org
> > >for some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the process
> > >to establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> > >(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> > >applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at
> > >IANA (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that process.
> > >
> > >And here we are.
> >
> >I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages
> >above.
> >
> >What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of
> >enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or
> >iTLDs, if you prefere).
> >We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of
> >different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet
> >Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
> >  a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting
> >question about new gTLDs still unanswered.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Roberto,
>
> OK, here goes. It will almost certainly garner the ire of those who should
> know better (watch the dismissive responses to my messages to see who they
> are). I have included references where I could.
>
> When the original discussions took place, there were a couple of dozen
> people, mostly communicating via mailing list (newdom). The original
> intention of IANA was to do three things:
>
> 1. Open up domain name registration competition to NSI by the creation of
> new registries and TLDs
> Before the feasibility of shared-tlds, the Postel plan was to create a
> number of new registries that would each provide up to three new TLDs. This
> is what generated the majority of the TLD applications. Each registry would
> theoretically be equal to NSI's .COM/.NET/.ORG franchise and provide
> economic incentives for pricing competition.
>
> 2. Open up competition to NSI by sharing registration services
> This was the creation of the registrar function and was originally
> discussed on newdom. I created the original shared-tld mailing list to see
> if a shared registry system was feasible. It was very straight forward on a
> technical level but fraught with policy & economic incentive problems which
> were not properly discussed - in fact the problems that ICANN is now having
> were foreseen but have been continually dismissed. Later versions of the
> Postel draft included shared-tlds (Jon copied the outline from my draft
> with my permission). My draft at the time[1] also proposed guidelines for
> defining the type of registry services a TLD would require -
> Shared/Specialized/Private - which I gather is now being explored by the
> various ICANN sub-sub-sub-committees. I also proposed the creation of a
> descriptive charter for each TLD which described both it's purpose and how
> it would be delegated. Kent Crispin has since championed the TLD charter.
>
> 3. Create a small series of ad hoc committees
> These small ad hoc committees from the internet community that would
> evaluate applications for new registries. There would be a published set of
> criteria which would determine if an application was to be approved. This
> included the selection and maintenance of the new TLD(s) that the registry
> was created to support [remember who serves whom here - it's a fundamental
> law that everyone seems to ignore]. The committee would be informal and
> have a revolving membership to allow continuity, but would not allow
> unnecessary outside interests to interfere with the approval process.
>
> Now we come back to reality - what actually happened is as follows:
>
> IANA indulged in some experimentation with various people who had expressed
> an interest in new registries/TLDs. Participation in the AlterNIC root
> system was actually encouraged for a while for functional testing of the
> proposed new registries. AlterNIC failed for a number of reasons we don't
> need to go into here, but the testing which IANA had proposed continues to
> this day. By the time the IAHC had come into existence, several personality
> conflicts had emerged which resulted in outright lies being broadcast about
> various people's intentions. These include IANA-acknowledged registry
> applicants fulfilling IANA-proposed operational requirements being accused
> of TLD squatting.
>
> Unfortunately, the IAHC committee that was eventually formed was the
> complete opposite of what was originally envisioned. It was a blue-ribbon
> interest-serving panel (ISOC, IANA, IAB, FNC, ITU, INTA, WIPO), all of whom
> had a claim to control the internet via the control of the domain name
> space. None of the committee members were prepared to work within the
> framework of what had gone on before (even the IANA representatives opposed
> Jon Postel's public views[2]). The IAHC accepted shared-tlds as the
> exclusive standard for introducing TLDs without attempting any due
> diligence or study of the real-world consequences. This had the effect of
> instantly disenfranchising the majority of the new-TLD supporters and all
> of the IANA-acknowledged applicants[3]. The committee then created it's own
> exclusionary community, with a [flawed] signatory document (the
> gtld-mou[4]) as the mandatory method of entry. The gtld-mou community
> (under the auspices of CORE[5]) then attempted to create 7 new shared-TLDs,
> two of which conflicted with IANA-acknowledged applications. This resulted
> in a lawsuit from Image Online Design (who was part of the pre-IAHC
> face-to-face discussions with IANA). The point isn't in the lawsuit (it was
> withdrawn leaving the findingst inconclusive), but the fact that TLDs were
> chosen deliberately to conflict and eradicate the validity of the previous
> IANA work.
>
> Briefly, CORE started to implement a shared registrar system, and had their
> test registry system stolen in mysterious circumstances. Fortunately, CORE
> has now become .COM/.NET/.ORG registrars. However, along the way CORE used
> Jon Postel to attempt to split the root zone in order to get their proposed
> TLDs into the non-US Government controlled root servers. The US Department
> of Commerce/NTIA rightfully intervened[6] and has attempted to put the
> process back on track by establishing IANA's successor, ICANN[7].
>
> History aside, the reason I believe we are no further along is because the
> fundamental laws of domain name delegation are not being recognized. Top
> level domains can be divided into three groups which determine how they are
> to be delegated:
>
> 1. Shared (non-exclusive) which are served by multiple competing registrars
> AND REGISTRIES
> 2. Specialized (exclusive) which are served by a single registry that has
> the necessary expertise to address specific industry issues (.INT)
> 3. Private (exclusive) which are required to serve single large
> organizations (.GOV, .MIL)
>
> In the case of Shared TLDs the registry back-end should also be
> competitive. The only practical way to achieve this is to use the Postel
> draft to create the registries for new shared-TLDs and the ICANN registrars
> to provide the public interface to these TLDs. There's nothing wrong with
> combining two good ideas, since everyone will get what they want.
>
> Another issue is in recognizing the correct ownership of the name space.
> RFC1591 states that the name space is recursive. What works at the 6LD
> works at the 5LD, and also works at the 4LD, 3LD, 2LD and ultimately the
> TLD. Obviously, exclusive use can be delegated at any level, and the rights
> associated with exclusive use are inconsistent with the idea of a public
> trust. The gtld-mou deliberately failed to recognize this, claiming the
> rights to the TLD layer under the guise of public resource[8]. I'm not
> saying that TLDs must be owned, but instead saying that famous marks may
> have enough rights for exclusive delegation.
>
> Next you have to decide what new TLDs to introduce. Let's assume you have a
> list of proposed TLDs by various organizations. What is stopping these from
> being introduced? Think about this carefully, because the reasons you will
> end up with are the real stumbling blocks to the growth and stability of
> the internet. Is it because:
>
> 1. the organizations requesting TLDs cannot qualify as registries?
> 2. the trademark community can't decide what trade categories will minimize
> conflicts?
> 3. the lawyers can't keep up with the Intellectual Property work?
> 4. the [governmental body] won't be able to regulate/tax the name space?
> 5. the [company name] won't be able to profiteer from the name space?
> 6. the [insert reason/motive here]?
>
> Roberto, there are a lot of reasons "why?". I doubt if I've mentioned them all.
>
> [1] http://www.iahc.org/contrib/draft-iahc-higgs-tld-cat-03.txt
> [2] http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00527.html
> [3] http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html
> [4] http://www.itu.int/net-itu/gtld-mou/gTLD-MoU.htm
> [5] http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/core.html
> [6] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm
> [7] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html
> [8] gtld-mou SECTION 2. - Principles
>      The following principles are adopted:
>      a.the Internet Top Level Domain (TLD) name space is a
>      public resource and is subject to the public trust;
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html