[ga-full] Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

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

Simon and all assembly members,

  It never ceases to amaze me that there are some folks, such as
Roberto here, and he certainly is not the only one that either have
not done their homework, or refuse to acknowledge the history of
getting new TLD's added.  It is baffling to me why these folks
choose to remain ignorant.

  We [INEGroup] support your effort as with a few others to
ensure that the historical record is made known in a complete
fashion as possible whether or not they choose to read and
pay attention to it.

Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 01:05 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Simon Higgs wrote:
> > >
> > >I'd also like to propose that the pre-IAHC work with IANA be
> > >recognized, and that an iTLD constituency be created. Constituents
> > >can from known contributors to the Jon Postel new TLD/registry
> > >drafts, or other new TLD/registry Internet Drafts published
> > >during 1996, or are named on the iTLD applicant list that Jon
> > >Postel published on behalf of IANA to iahc-discuss.
> > >
> > >The purpose of the iTLD Constituency is to create new
> > >registries that will compete at the registry-level with NSI
> > >(currently no competition exists for gTLDs or rTLDs at the
> > >registry-level).
> >
> >What I do not understand is it is possible to dig into pre-history of DN
> >  policy and, at the same time, forget about the most recent events.
> >I know I will sound like Amadeu, quoting his grand-mother, but this
> >seems to me like my uncle, remembering everything (so he claims) about
> >the war, but not remembering what he did yesterday.
>
> 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.
>
> You'll notice a very small number of people who should know better call
> this "unsanctioned", "rogue effort", etc. But, and I feel this has to be
> repeated until people get it, the RFC1591 process is a legally binding
> application process (for the sake of preventing arguing here, I'm not
> saying "must delegate", but just an application process). After all, IANA,
> NSF, and Network Solutions have based the entire domain name creation
> process upon it.
>
> The outline of the process is that domain name template applications were
> sent to "hostmaster@internic.net". Those for the root level (TLDs) were
> then assigned an ID number and forwarded to IANA. These applications were
> then put in a file, awaiting the outcome of the process to introduce new
> TLDs, which hasn't happened yet. This (or the authority for it) is
> documented in a number of places:
>
> Co-op agreement solicitation:
> ftp://ftp.internic.net/nsf/nren-solicitation.txt
> "This project solicitation is issued pursuant to the National Science
> Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C.  1861 et seq) and the Federal
> Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6305) and is not subject to the
> Federal Acquisition Regulations."
> "The provider of registration services will function in accordance with the
> provisions of RFC 1174."
>
> Co-op agreement:
> http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/internic/cooperative-agreement/agreement.html
> "This agreement is awarded under the authority of the National Science
> Foundation Act (R@ U.S.C. 186 et seq.) and the Federal Grant and
> Cooperative Agreement Act (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)"
> "The Awardee shall provide registration services in accordance with the
> provisions of RFC 1174"
>
> RFC1174:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1174.html
> "The IANA has the discretionary authority to delegate portions of this
> responsibility and, with respect to numeric network and autonomous system
> identifiers, has lodged this responsibility with an Internet Registry (IR)."
>
> Internet Society:
> http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/iana.shtml
> "The IANA has managed the root of the DNS to promote stability and
> robustness. This role is primarily one of making minor technical decisions
> about [..] evaluating any additions to the established generic top level
> domains which are proposed by the community."
>
> PGP Media vs. Network Solutions:
> 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. (RFC1591, of course, is the
> successor to RFC1174, which was invoked by paragraph C in the cooperative
> agreement's statement of work."
> [Note my recent request for information about the current status]
>
> So, the problem that exists today is that there are historical precedents
> set, and a number of TLD applications which were submitted in accordance
> with the above documented practices, in areas that ICANN has not yet made
> decisions about. Thus the request to have these applicants recognized, and
> represented within ICANN.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> --
> The future is still out there...
>
> --
> 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