Re: [ga] Re: Another senseless rejection of the pioneering work of JonPostel

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Anyone got a URL for those?

Welcome to the DNS Wars, Sandy.

I've got some stuff at http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html that
might be of interest. There's a also a three year old paper called "the
technical construction of globalism" that gets into the pre-IFWP
goings-on in more detail.  http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/dnsdraft.html

And, since I think it's related, here's a rehash of something I posted
elsewehere not long ago in response to the question, "Why is CORE
controversial?"

.....

Short answer: 

1) It's part of the age-old dispute between authority and autonomy. 
2) Follow the money.

Longer answer:

The gTLD-MoU plan was to: 

1) create 7 new gTLDs under a non-profit shared registry (though the
actual registry database service would be contracted out to a
profit-oriented venture, subject to rebid). Taking the .com database
from NSI was definitely on the agenda. The stated thrust was to treat
the gTLD space as a public good, which meant ending the private 
monopoly on gTLDs and to cultivate private competition and innovation in
SLD sales at the registrar level.

2) create a worldwide system of registrars who would sell into the new
gTLDs, and later com/net/org (the original plan limited the number of
registrars to 28, spread equally across the continents, but EC protests
led to the removal of that constraint).

3) manage dispute resolution through WIPO (TM interests were apparently
going to have some sort of special read only access into the central
registry machine to enable checks on whether certain strings they cared
about were registered. There was no "sunshine" provision excluding
certain strings.) 

4) use the fees to fund IANA, which was expecting to lose its DARPA
support.

5) create POC and PAB. Policy oversight committee constituted mostly by
IETF/IAB/ISOC. Public advisory committee (non-binding) constituted by
groups that show up and declare their allegiance (not many did).

In addition:

6) CORE was the Council of Registrars, representing the people who put
up the money to be registrars. Spawned by a mostly-closed, non-minuted
process (the IAHC) made up of IETF/INTA/WIPO/ITU types, there was
widespread concern that at best, the volunteer-run Internet root was
being put under tighter control of big business which now had lots of $
at stake, or at worst, the root was being captured by interests
(particularly the ITU) considered to be inimical to open networking.

7) CORE hoped to be online by late 1997, but things were over budget and
still delayed by early 1998. The Green Paper essentially shot it down,
though it's clear CORE was not ready for prime time. (CORE supporters
dispute among themselves how ready they actually were.)

8) CORE was stigmatized by "unstatesmanlike" behavior on the part of
certain IAHC members, exacerbated by a long history of bad blood between
several of the IAHC folks and some people on various lists (particularly
the NSI-funded ones).

9) The IAHC's decision to require a non-profit shared registry model for
all new gTLDs was opposed by people who wanted to make money through
proprietary control of gTLDs. It was also opposed by people who objected
to the business model of splitting the registrar function from the
registry. And it was opposed by poeple who were concerned about lack of
public accountability in the POC and WIPO. And it was opposed by NSI,
which mounted a well-funded campaign to block it.

10) CORE would have moved controlling authority over the legacy root to
Geneva. CORE opponents were able to get a lot of political mileage by
making nativist appeals, especially to members of Congress.

11) The IAHC's plan for only 7 new gTLDs fell far short of Postel's
initial suggestions of around 150. That number emerging from the IAHC,
with no formal mention of more to come later, represented a big victory
for the TM community. And of course, none of these were ever introduced.
The only parties who have benefited from the delay more than TM holders
are NSI and the resellers of overpriced names in .com.



....

I've been working on and off on a Ph.D. dissertation called "Roots of
Power: The Rise of Dot-Com and the Decline of the Nation-State." The
odds are good that I'll complete it before any new gTLDs get added to
the root. That gives me lots of time.

Craig Simon
--
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