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

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Simon,

I hope that you don't mind  my including WG-C in this. You see D'Crock has
been stating that the alternate root-servers have no bearing on the WG-C
discussions. It took you a while, but this message contains sound argument
that the alternative roots and TLD registries are very relevant.  Contrary
to what D'Crock states, those efforts were NOT rogue or renegade, although
some participants may have acted improperly, due to the frustration. It's
all about mis-managed expectations. The new TLD registries were lead to
believe that they would be able to do business, from the root, long ago.

Before anyone jumps on this, (I say this without casting any
value-judgements) Simon has presented sufficient argument, including
evidence well beyond the pale, that these are the true facts. Where it
impacts WG-C is the context under which we have to work. Promises were made
and expectations were set. Rightly or wrongly, they can not be ignored, as
D'Crock suggests. How we handle it is an altogether different issue.

<value-judgement>
BTW, this story paints the IAHC in a most vile color. Since, D'Crock headed
that effort, he gets painted with that same color. The two-year, continuous,
pogrom that, D'Crock has launched, and continues to maintain, to marginalize
those folks as rogue and renegade, is most vile indeed. Chris Ambler is
correct, these were pioneers. D'Crock is wrong, they are not rogues. They
were following a process that the IANA itself set in motion, under color of
the USG/NFS, just as the IAHC was also a part of that process. It is too bad
that the leader of the IAHC effort decided to try and re-write history, by
attempting to blot out the pioneer effort. A lot of this bickering wouldn't
exist.
</value-judgement>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon
> Higgs
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 8:33 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org; roberto.gaetano@voila.fr
> Subject: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership
> again......)
>
>
> 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-agr
> eement/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
>

--
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