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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 02:00 PM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

You have caused an immense disservice to ICANN in the past 24 hours, and 
you've been called on it by a number of people. They may not have been 
polite or righteous, but they were ultimately responding to your mistrust 
and dishonesty.

>in 1994 through 1996 the IANA guidance was experemental, and the IAHC came
>out of all that.

The IAHC rejected the prior IANA work and got sued (IOD). Then the DoC, 
recognizing the inequity the IAHC had created in the process, stepped in 
and invalidated the IAHC and tore up the gTLD-MoU. Remember? NSI and IANA 
got sued again (PGPMedia) and IANA gave it's discretional authority back to 
the DoC to avoid litigation. The result (more than I have time to write 
here) was the DoC creating ICANN out of the ashes of IANA, and the root 
zone landing in the hands of the DoC.

The experimental process IANA started still exists, and has not been 
invalidated by law, due process, or business model (in fact it works 
exactly as John Gilmore describes "to route around censorship"). It has 
worked alongside the DoC both formally (in response to the Green and White 
papers) and informally.

FYI, the experimental process still carries the 5 non-conflicting IAHC 
TLDs, and therefore attempts to protect the end consumer who registered 
domain names under the CORE registry. The very things you accuse the 
pioneers of are the reasons why the CORE registry has failed so far.

>I have alot of respect for the folks that tried to move
>things allong, that had no interntion to use the corts or had the grand
>desire of wealth.

Why don't I believe you? Your impression of motives is twisted like all the 
other CORE folks. What you are telling me is only you can be right, and 
everyone else is wrong. That's not good enough for an open process. You've 
criminalized the early pioneers for what? Being first? Working with IANA 
and being productive?

Tell me, why are those pioneers still standing, working together 
co-operatively with a comprehensive, non-conflicting root system which 
resolves for those who want to see them, when the IAHC and gTLD-MoU was 
shut down by the US Government and marked as a failure? Even the pioneers 
still recognize the rules established by Jon Postel and carry the five 
non-conflicting IAHC/CORE TLDs - in spite of the aggressive lies and false 
accusations made against them by CORE members.

Are we seeing a pattern develop here over the last 6 years? Do you see who 
is really cooperating, and who is politiking and only serving special 
interests?

>I don't think the iTLD movements are applicable 4 to 6
>years later, not internet-years (remember the term?) regular years!

That's where you are wrong. They are more important now than ever. Why? 
Because ICANN has the opportunity:

1. to learn how to introduce new TLDs from those who have already done it
2. to honour those who have followed the rules in the prior processes
3. to be fair and impartial and recognize *all* TLD requests per RFC1591. 
Not just some of them. (RFC1591 is mandated under US Code by the NSF)
4. to show proper leadership in internet governance

Failure in any one of those is failure over all. Remember ICANN cannot 
afford to fail. So ignoring the lessons from the past is your wise counsel? 
I think not. It is inherently irresponsible and stupid.

>This is the year 2000, we should have setteled all those issues along time
>ago. Its all history if we can just move on now, please ?!?

But they haven't been settled. Have they? They've been shoved under the 
carpet, ignored, ridiculed, poked fun at, and lied about. So much for an 
open and equitable process.

>this is NOW, not 1995. we need one root and we need those same folks that
>wanted new gTLD back in 1995 to realize that it took along time and the
>Internet is not the same as it ws back then.

One root. I can buy that. I only use one root. ;-)

The Internet's not the same as it was in 1995. I can buy that. ;-)

So what?

The principles people like Jon Postel established are as valid today as 
they were back then, and should not be taken for granted, ignored, or 
diluted - which is what you are doing.

>I wish you would realize we
>are finally comming up to a real chance to get additional gTLDs inserted
>into the IANA roots.

Yes, and? We should throw justice and openness away in order to put new 
TLDs in the root? You'd rather sell out your soul for a new TLD? I think not.

New TLDs are inevitable. They won't happen until a just process ("equitable 
to all parties" per RFC1591) puts them there. Now could be the time for 
that process if ICANN doesn't get distracted by special interests, pride, 
egos, or sheer bloody mindedness.

If you want to help, please clean up the mess you have created over the 
last 24 hours. Everyone has been more than willing to help you. You treat 
them badly, and act surprised when they get upset at you. Read the man 
pages for dig and nslookup.

>Don't you remember how all this started?

Yeah, I do. I was the first non-ccTLD applicant to IANA. Before newdom. So, 
how about putting the last six years in proper perspective and let us 
finish what we started, which was the orderly introduction of new TLDs to 
the IANA root? If you get in the way of that, to serve your own interests, 
you are an obstacle to the whole process.

And, you'll love this... You want the alt.roots to go away? I know how to 
shut them down all down and make them obsolete. You don't know how to do 
that. If you did, you wouldn't be causing so much bad blood over trivial 
issues like zone transfers.

>-rick
>
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Simon Higgs wrote:
>
> > At 11:19 AM 7/7/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > PgMedia is rogue, ORSC isn't.
> > > > If you don't know what I'm talking about you can go to the
> > > > archives from just a few weeks ago.
> > >
> > >I apply the term rogue to any organization that premotes the sale of
> > >DNS labels that are not in the ICANN root.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the experimental iTLD work of Jon Postel and
> > IANA prior to the IAHC formation, correct?
> >
> > ...you reject, as "rogue", the IANA guidance from 1995 and 1996 (including
> > legal disclaimers provided by IANA to non-IANA-root registries) which
> > established the early registry pioneers, correct?
> >
> > You get flamed for good reasons, Rick.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Simon Higgs
> >
> > --
> > It's a feature not a bug...
> >


Best Regards,

Simon Higgs

--
It's a feature not a bug...

--
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