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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

Hi Sandy,

See below...

>Simon Higgs wrote:
>
> > >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.
>
>I'm coming late to all this. I do know what IANA and NSI are, and have
>some clue how DNS works, but I've never heard of IAHC or the lawsuits.
>Is there a web site somewhere that will bring me up to date, preferably
>without having to read several years of archived posts.

My short outline of the process:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc00/msg00951.html

Name.Space, Inc. (formerly pgMedia) v. Network Solutions, Inc. and the 
National Science Foundation
http://name.space.xs2.net/law/

Look under U.S. Federal and U.S. California for PGPMedia and IOD suits:
http://www.wia.org/dns-law/

Kent's criticism of my last post, and the outcome of the lawsuits, is 
largely irrelevant. The problem is that, according to RFC1591:

"3. The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is 
that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the 
ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job."

and

"3. 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain 
that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to 
all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory 
fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an 
equal basis."

RFC1591 goes on to say that the name space is recursive and the same rules 
must be applied at each level.

The obvious sign that this equitable process isn't happening is the filing 
of a lawsuit against the manager of the domain (in the above cases the 
manager of the root domain/zone). Lawsuits are the leading indicator that 
the process has failed (and the reality of the IOD suit triggered the US 
Government's intervention in the IAHC/gTLD-MoU process).

> > 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.
>
>Anyone got a URL for those?

http://www.open-rsc.org/
[ORSC submission to DoC: 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/orsc/ORSC_PRO.htm ]

http://www.superroot.org/

http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone/

Hopefully, you will get a feel for who will tell you the truth (with URLs 
so you can verify the facts for yourself), and who will just make wild 
accusations and clutter bandwidth. It's the latter folk who have caused the 
obstacles to progress. I'd like to apologize for them, but they should 
really do that themselves.


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