Attention ICANN :The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (Flashback)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Greg and all,

Craig Simon wrote:

> Ellen Rony wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for posting this interesting, historical list of iTLD requests.  I
> > wish we had this when composing Chapter 13 of The Domain Name Handbook.
>
> I posted the link for this on the IFWP list weeks ago, and it's been on my page
> at
>
> http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/overview.html
>
> under "Stakes and Claims" for a lot longer than that. Hmmm. Maybe I should be a
> little more verbose and outspoken in my postings if I want to draw attention to
> myself.
>
> > The record brings up several questions.  First, what occurred about
> > mid-September 1995 that led these people to begin submitting requests?
>
> That was when NSI began charging for names. This is also when Matthew Marnell
> started the first Newdom list to discuss how to bring competition to the
> registration system. "Applications" for TLDs started showing up immediately.

  Well of course after NSI was allowed by NSF to start charging forregistration's
others were going to start requesting having new TLD's
added to the Root.  The IANA and NSi should have allowed them to be
added.  This is where the rift as to "Who runs the Root" all started
really.  The IANA just didn't do anything as they were caught
flat footed when NSF allowed NSI to start charging for registrations.
We wouldn't be where we are now if NSF had handled that decision
in a more plural manner.  But they didn't which left the IANA and
NSI in a potential adversarial position, which eventually developed
as we all now know. Of course NSI was not going to open
"Their" Root open for compitition, so they couldn't come to an agreement
with Jon Postel back in 1995.  I spoke personally at length on the phone with
Jon about this very situation just before the IAHC initiative was started.
Jon's reasoning for the IAHC initiative was to build ground swell support
to slowly add new TLD's to the Root and thereby force NSI to allow
for it.  I told him than that it wasn't likely to work, and it did not.  I know
many others that told him the same thing.  But Jon's well known stubbornness
was than in control, and he wasn't budging as a result.

  All this is historical and use full background that I have yet to see any
publications (Books or articles) to mention.  And it also leads us to
in part the reason for Chirs Amblers and other RSC's claims.
Chirs Amblers .WEB, is "Running Code", which as far as I am
personally concerned, gives him the right to the .WEB gTLD.  Now,
understand, the INEG. Group, only supports shared gTLD's or
any TLD as well a s shared root structure for DNS.  Make sure you
understand that distinction.  The IANA and a few others do not
believe that a Shared Root Structure will work, and prefer dated
Legacy systems. There are many architectural and technical
arguments and differences for these divergent DNS designs.
The Legacy systems does work, but has limitations on expansion because
of that design.  Therefore until one side or the other can prove who
is MORE Right, this problem will continue to to plague the Internet
and thereby hamper expansion of the DNS system.  And this also
now leads us into the IP allocation problem.  But that is another whole
subject area, of course, however they are obviously closely related.


Conclusion:  ( ICANN Interim Board PLEASE take note here)

  We believe that to solve this problem, and part of the reason for our
proposal of bylaws to the NTIA, is that solving this and the IP allocation
known problems should be based on business and market needs or
perceived market needs. If the technology is there, than why not do it?

  We on several occasions to both the IANA and the leadership of the
IAHC/gTLD-MoU attempted to discuss these issues, to which we
were rudely rebuffed or in the case of the IANA just plain
ignored, except for my initial discussion on the phone with Jon
Postel.  I personally at that time felt that we were in for a long battle
that was unnecessary, contrived, and unproductive.  It is yet again,
beginning to shape up that way again with the ICANN Interim Board,
based on some conversations with Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts
thus far.  Through myself as the INEG. Group representative, offered
up the olive branch, but are certainly prepared to use the Hammer,
if that is what it takes.  As I have always believed, and my old
grandpappy used to say, "where reason fails force prevails".  We are
fully prepared to peruse either path in the defense or our customers,
and those that may not be our customers but support our and others
concerns.

>
>
> > Also, why did IAHC choose any names for its own dominion that were already
> > on this list, Ambler's and Fenello's own claims notwithstanding. There are
> > some good abbreviations and categories, to be certain, but the American
> > dictionary alone includes 250,000 words.
>
> .WEB is kind of obvious, which is why there were also "applications" for it that
> well predated Amblers'. (As you may recall, I've written that I think it was a
> bad move for the IAHC to unilaterally claim .WEB.) Dave Crocker has repeatedly
> said the members of the IAHC didn't know that Skyscape had claimed .ARTS, which
> is plausible since it's not on that list.
>
> > I'd also be curious to know if these requestors, many whose names I don't
> > recognize, have remained involved in the DNS discussion--through IETF, ISOC
> > or lurking on this list.  Those who have backed their claims with lawsuits
> > are curiously absent from this listing.
>
> I've tried contacting several without much success. People fade in and out. When
> I first started my research I tried contacting Chris Ambler on several
> occasions, without ever hearing a response. Now he's one of the most visible
> people on the list, and is delighted to tell the "envelope" story to anyone
> who'll listen.
> Chris is on Postel's list where he belongs, at July 2 1996, but it's true that
> Jay Fenello isn't there. The first time Jay shows up on the newdom archives I
> just browsed through is May 97, and I was expecting he would havemade his
> presence known before then. When did Iperdome start business?  Of course, Jay
> and Chris argue they have been "providing continuing service," unlike most other
> claimants. I think Karl Denninger and Paul Garrin make the same argument.
>
> Also, if you want to check out a real interesting link concerning resource
> contention and allocation on the Internet, check out:
>
> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
> Craig Simon
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894