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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

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