Re: About .eu - Was: Re: [ga] Meeting on the creation of .EU TLD

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

Simon and all assembly members,

  WXW often argues against himself.  This is of course well documented now.
None the less as I observed and stated earlier on this thread in WXW's original
response, his questions/comments were valid in context, and did pertain to
the matter in question.  The need to joust with Joe Baptista by WXW, is of course
a long standing feud that is of little value here, and as you indicate nicely, in
conjunction
with the IANA of old, is pointless as well.  I think that the WXW fables are, and
have been more of a destructive distraction than of meaningful and constructive
dialog or debate.

  What is important here, as you Simon, rightly pointed out and I originally
responded
to in WXW's post/response indirectly, is that ICANN is propagating out many
of the same delay tactics on the most important areas or redress and over
excellerating others in a mix/mash manner so as to seemingly purposefully
confuse and disenfranchise as a result, the stakeholder or future stakeholder.
This to us [INEGroup] is a gross indication(s) of poor knowledge base leading
to bad and/or improper management.  It needs to either be corrected or
another complete solution should be much more seriously considered in
replacement of ICANN all together.



Simon Higgs wrote:

> At 05:19 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> You'll shoot yourself in the foot arguing against yourself. :-)
>
> IANA had the authority to introduce new TLDs into the root, as evidenced by
> the introduction of ccTLDs during the same time period. This was part of
> their NSF contract. At the time, IANA was in the process of defining a new
> process (which is now ICANN) to bring competition to NSI, and so new iTLD
> applications were solicited during 1995/1996 and accepted by IANA under the
> RFC1591 guidelines. The domain name template that InterNIC/NSI used in
> those days had the provision for accepting *ALL* TLDs, and this was the
> vehicle specified by IANA. These are the historical facts, though there are
> a number of reasons why these applications have not been processed. This
> supports your argument to the .EU folks.
>
> Unfortunately you equate Joe Baptista with IANA which is a completely
> nonsensical thing to do, and the reference is a red herring. Anyone can
> create a TLD that will resolve on their own DNS servers. Many private
> companies (including Sun) do this behind their firewalls for their Intranet
> as part of their security posture (I've done it for a DoD command). If Joe
> wants to collect TLDs for use on his servers why not let him? If other
> folks want to query his servers, why should you interfere? DNS is supposed
> to be a democracy with the end-user having the vote.
>
> >On 20-Mar-2000 Simon Higgs wrote:
> > > Especially when there has always been a published process, and IANA have
> > > acknowledged receipt of the earliest applications. See RFC1591. Section
> > > 3.  The Administration of Delegated Domains
> >
> >IANA lacked the authority to add new gTLDs and hence any such applications are
> >not valid.  The NSF made it very clear that IANA did not have the authority to
> >grant or create new Top level domains.  The IANA assumed it had that authority
> >(hoped?) but their "process" is no better than Joe Baptista saying you can
> >create a new TLD simply by emailing him an "application" since they lacked the
> >proper authority to engage in that activity.
>
> 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@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