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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

Jeff,

I wasn't referring to Roberto. He is asking practical questions. Hopefully 
we can get some kind of consensus out of the results.

Simon

>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@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


Best Regards,

Simon

--
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds 
discuss people, and Fools argue.

--
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