RE: [ga] Older registrations

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 11:12 AM 3/30/00 +0930, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 11:17 PM 3/28/00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>>To: simon@higgs.net, undisclosed recipients
>>>From: "Richard J. Sexton" <richard@dnso.com>
>>>Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations
>>>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:19:46 -0500 (EST)
>
>What is most fascinating is that a) Jon virtually never made the kind of 
>comment that Richard cites, about anyone; that is, Jon was extremely 
>circumspect in his comments about others; and b) he certainly never made 
>such comments to me, in spite of my periodically checking with him as the 
>IAHC work progressed.
>
>How curious that he would make such a strongly critical comment to a 
>casual acquaintance and not to his appointee.

I had lunch with Jon just a few weeks before he died. You'd be surprised at 
what was said. Like you said - "virtually never". ;-)

>>>So not only did Jon encourage the development of an alternative root
>>>system, he pointed Wall St. poeple at him.

I can vouch for Jon's pointing Eugene towards Wall Street (from 
conversations I had with both Jon and Eugene). It really surprised me too. 
I don't think it warrants further discussion.

>>>Big ISP's like best.com
>>>were using it, the ISP I use up here in the country was using it before
>>>I ever moved here or ever talked to them. Even the IAHC used
>>>AlterNIC roots[2], albeit unwittingly, but that's how much it was
>
>The IAHC web page was hosted on a machine that used a co-location service 
>in California.  The co-lo ISP did use alternic, but the machine doing the 
>hosting did not.  It went directly through the IANA root and never touched 
>the ISP's dns server.

There were subscriptions to iahc-discuss from "@alter.nic" addresses. 
"majordomo@imc.org" on "mail.proper.com" seemed quite happy to process 
them, and they were received by the alt.root machines.

Also, eDNS, ORSC, and other alternate roots have been quite happy to carry 
the five undisputed IAHC TLDs - per request from some CORE folk for testing 
purposes. I think they're still being carried by today's alt.roots. These 
alt.roots have been more than willing to co-operate with the IAHC in the 
absence of territorial disputes.

>>>Over the years, the de facto new domains working group has been
>>>called every name in the book by Crocker and his ilk, and you can't
>
>That's odd.  I thought my choice of vocabulary was pretty constrained and 
>consistent.
>
>I've primarily referred to it as a rogue effort from the beginning.

And therein lies the problem. A die-hard refusal on your part to work with 
others in the newdom community, especially prior work that has had direct 
personal guidance from IANA staff, which you purported to represent.

This is exactly what has caused the fragmentation between the pre-IAHC and 
post-IAHC work which we are *ALL* (almost all) trying to mend.

Roberto - here is one (of many) answers to the question of "Why?" Thanks 
for the example, Dave.


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