Re: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusive Name Space SIG ML

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:00 AM (AEST), Marc Schneiders wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML


> The point is of course the term 'cooperative'. The so-called legacy
> root has hardly any history of cooperation, no has none at all.
>
> There is no agreement whatsoever. The status quo is imposed by the USG
> and its contractors, including ICANN. All the rest is window dressing.
>
> Marc Schneiders
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 11:36 [=GMT+1000], Dassa wrote:

Hi Darryl

There are, as I understand it, about 300 people on this list.  Their
understanding ranges from abysmal to expert.  Some may have only just joined a
day or so ago.

I remember you on the <discuss-list@opensrs.org> mailing list in June last year
and on the <idno-discuss@idno.org> list in December.  We also corresponded
privately about the Australian Tax system back in September.  We may have also
met on the Australian mailing lists, perhaps [DNS] or [LINK] or both.  You are
certainly pretty competent.

I think, therefore, it is only fair to point out that many people are not
familiar with the quite complex tripartite agreements between ICANN, DoC and
Verisign (formerly known as NettSol) and in particular the separation between
the Registry and Registrar functions or indeed how any of that relates to the
operator of the "A" root.

Indeed several ccTLDs have argued, in Melbourne and elsewhere, about the nature
of their responsibility to Jon Postel-IANA-ICANN especially when being invoiced.

The RFCs are also under attack in several respects.  This takes us back to
RFC1074 and it's successor - RFC1591.  Of course RFC1591 has been challenged by
many on this list and now there is a new RFC3071 which has raised other
interesting issues.

I have personally asked several members of the ICANN Board whether there is any
policy on alt roots.  Apparently there is none.  Others have said that alt.roots
should not be created unless they follow the specs defined by the IETF and the
IAB.

In this regard, Simon Higgs has said:

> There are no valid specs. That's the point. RFC2826 is implausible deniability
> for the existence of alt.roots. The IAB think that if they convince everyone
> that alt.roots don't exist, then the problems that created them will go away.
> Wrong answer.

In these circumstances in really behoves everyone to be specific in their claims
especially when referring to RFCs and Internet Drafts, etc.  Your comment was:

> > Try the relevent RFC and the history archives.  Not all agreements are
> > explicity written either.

I'd ask you, and others on the list, to move this debate along constructively by
saying exactly what you mean, quoting references and providing necessary links.

Otherwise we are just wasting time arguing from opinion and analogy.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


> > |> -----Original Message-----
> > |> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org
> > |> On Behalf Of Marc Schneiders
> > |> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:03 AM
> > |> To: Dassa
> > |> Cc: Ga
> > |> Subject: RE: [ga] I want to be on the Inclusivbe Name Space SIG ML
> > |>
> > |>
> > |> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, at 10:04 [=GMT+1000], Dassa wrote:
> > |>
> > |> > There is not a single name space.  There are multiple name spaces
> > that
> > |> > under the legacy system operate under a cooperative agreement.
> > |>
> > |> I would like to read that cooperative agreement.
> >
> > Being facetious is not helpful.  You are aware of the history and what
> > has evolved with regards to the legacy system.
> >
> > |> > The alternative name spaces are not operating under that
> > cooperative
> > |> > agreement and are in direct competition with it.
> > |>
> > |> Which cooperative agreement? Competing in what way? Don't
> > |> they include the so-called legacy name spaces?
> >
> > Obtuse reactions are not helpful either.  Competition occurs due to
> > the fact the alternative name spaces compete with the legacy system
> > for users.  The fact one name space includes another doesn't mean it
> > is a part of the other name space.
> >
> > |> > Pure and simple.
> > |>
> > |> Is it? Tell me where I can read it.
> >
> > Try the relevent RFC and the history archives.  Not all agreements are
> > explicity written either.
> >
> > Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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