<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> Dear Ross,
>
> The EPP Toolkit we developed is provided as part of the SouceForge project
you refer to (http://souceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk). The Global Name
Registry team developed internally the C++ version of the EPP Toolkit,
together with extensions to the Java toolkit (these extensions are also
available from the same page), and have been active participants in
discussing and evolving API that is common to the C++ and Java versions of
the EPP Toolkit.
Karen,
This might be too fine of a point to discuss here in the GA, but given the
community roots of the project, I think that its only fair that I speak out
on this point.
The epp-rtk project finds its roots in the broad agreement that it didn't
and doesn't make a ton of sense to have 7 new registries running 7 new
policy sets with 7 new protocols and 7 new interface toolkits. There are a
number of people and corporations that set out to address this from a
technical perspective. Verisign, GNR, Afilias, Tucows, Rick Wesson, Eric
Brunner-Wiiliams, Marshall Rose, Bruce Minor and dozens more have left their
mark on various aspects of this loosely defined effort. My point is not to
diminish GNR's contribution to the EPP R/RTK initiative, but simply to point
out that "...concerns about "rights" and "ownership" ... are inappropriate.
It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to
the community." (apologies to Postel). Or perhaps more succinctly, as Eric
Raymond points out[1], "according to the standard open-source licenses, all
parties are equals in the evolutionary game."
Given the time that Neulevel, Afilias, Verisign, GNR and others have devoted
to the development of the protocol, the resources that Afilias continues to
invest in the public EPP sandbox and the numerous developers (including GNR
staffers) that make the Universal R/RTK actual living, breathing community
code, I would simply request that GNR reconsider its public use of language
like ""We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol independent
business logic and near-real time updates on DNS..."
As with dotORG, the epp-rtk work also finds its roots in a community - some
of the same sensitivities must be kept in mind.
Thanks,
-rwr
[1] http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/homesteading/
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- Soren Kierkegaard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Elizaga" <karen@elizaga.name>
To: <ross@tucows.com>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> Dear Ross,
>
> The EPP Toolkit we developed is provided as part of the SouceForge project
you refer to (http://souceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk). The Global Name
Registry team developed internally the C++ version of the EPP Toolkit,
together with extensions to the Java toolkit (these extensions are also
available from the same page), and have been active participants in
discussing and evolving API that is common to the C++ and Java versions of
the EPP Toolkit.
> I
> hope that's helpful.
>
> Regards.
> KE
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
> Sent: 10 September 2002 22:13
> To: 'Rick Wesson'
> Cc: Karen Elizaga; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
>
>
> Don't know - hence the question ;)
>
> Seriously - I have zero awareness of the status of the R/RTK project and
> the status of the individual contributions as each relate to what the
> specific registry operators are actually doing with the code (or not
> doing as the case may be). My request is simply to clarify which code
> GNR is referring to in their supplemental response.
>
>
>
> -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
> Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> http://www.byte.org/heathrow
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:00 PM
> > To: Ross Wm. Rader
> > Cc: 'Karen Elizaga'; 'DNSO General Assembly'
> > Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ross,
> >
> > Didn't GNR develop a epp tool kit in c++? and isn't this
> > toolkit available on the same page as yours?
> >
> > -rick
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
> >
> > > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> > > > Karen Elizaga
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:47 PM
> > >
> > > > HI Ross,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your follow up questions (which appear below).
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Karen - thanks for the clarifications, these answers combined with
> > > your response to the ICANN staff (answering similar
> > questions) helped
> > > clear things up to a large degree for me.
> > >
> > > One statement in your supplemental response to the evaluation team
> > > jumped out at me however...
> > >
> > > "We alone have designed, developed and operated most of the SRS
> > > solutions internally, ranging from the EPP toolkit, protocol
> > > independent business logic and near-real time updates on DNS, Whois
> > > and MX. "
> > >
> > > The EPP toolkit that you reference above - is this the same
> > code that
> > > is being developed by the Universal R/RTK project over at
> > Sourceforge
> > > under a GPL license?
> > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/epp-rtk) or > has
> > > GNR opted
> > to instead provide a proprietary RTK to its registrars
> > > instead of the public version? What is the plan in this
> > regard if GNR
> > > is successful with the .org bid?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > >
> > > -rwr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the
> > shore like an
> > > idiot."
> > > - Steven Wright
> > >
> > > Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
> > >
> > > Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
> > http://www.byte.org/heathrow
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary
Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our
company. This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure
to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for
disclosure to other parties.
> *****************
> What's your .name?
> Get one at www.name
> *****************
>
> --
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|