RE: [ifwp] Re: The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (Flashback)

["Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com>]

Roeland,

You wrote:
"Personally, I think it would do more harm than good, were the present BoD
to step down. It would add nothing more, other than yet more delay, which
may prove fatal at this point."

I could not agree more.  Although there is certainly a great deal to be
disturbed by with the current structure of things, dissolving the current
board is NOT the answer.  It is inperative, however, that the apporpriate
concerns be brought to the board, and that they be forced to address them.
The question then becomes - How?

Hopefully, those who have legitimate issues (and an intelligent approach to
them) will be heard.  The alternative is, in order, chaos, anarchy and
revolution.  Is that the path we want to follow?

Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated

-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 1998 3:17 PM
To: IFWP Discussion List
Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET; DNSO; IFWP Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] Re: The IANA's File of iTLD Requests (Flashback)


At 10:48 AM 11/15/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
><snipped>
>> Should those who
>> now offer service without honoring the first-come, first-served principle
>> outlined in RFC 1591 (March 1994) be rewarded for perservering in their
>> self-serving, potentially root-fragmenting interests?  (Latter question
>> assumes that such individuals did not have claims to the iTLDs
transferred
>> by individuals who applied earlier.)
>
>I have felt this way from day one.  I have serious doubts about the "Prior
>Claim" rules I have seen proposed on this list by organizations such as
ORSC
>that propose to have those with "prior claim" be first in the queue for new
>gTLDs.  They all knew they were moving forward without operational
authority,
>and had no basis for believing they would be added to the roots when they
>began.
>
>Many other organizations with interests in operating registry services have
>worked within the process and not deployed alternative (renegade?) root
server
>efforts and use those efforts as a claim to authority today.

If we could stop with the inflammatory language, we might actually get
somewhere. Might I suggest the more neutral term Ghost-TLDs? After all, the
only difference is a lack of TLD peer registration. To call them "renegade"
may or may not be accurate, as it pre-disposes/connotes harmful intent. In
legal terms, the term "renegade" is prejudicial. If that intent was indeed
harmful those owners would not be on this list trying to work something
out. Forcing them into a psychologically defensive posture by accusing
them, by implication, of intending to harm the InterNet, is
counter-productive and far from accurate. We all agree that such ghosts do
no harm to the InterNet if operated privately and that private ghosting of
TLDs has a legitimate purpose to someone and harms/effects no one.


>I also know the controversy such a position can be on this list, since it
is so
>populated with those who have deployed non-operational (meaning not
recognized,
>and outside the IANA roots) TLDs and root servers.  But my general feeling
on
>this is that they should have NO stronger claim to any TLD then any other
>organization seeking registry status when ICANN begins delegating gTLD
>registries. They should have to start from position one along with any
other
>organizations seeking to provide registry services for those gTLDs, and let
>ICANN decidee on merits, not "Prior Use."  This should also preclude any
>assumption that CORE would get any of the TLDs they are currently
marketing.
>They have no basis for claiming any of them at this point, and when ICANN
>accepts applications for new registries, their application should be on an
even
>playing field with any and all applications for the same TLDs.

>I could deploy a new TLD today with ease, and have a nearly automated
registry
>system setup within hours.  But this does not confer on me any legal
rights to
>that TLD in future ICANN/IANA proceedings.

That is your opinion, which I may or may not disagree with. I submit that
it is a point of negotiation.

>I know there are those who say they deployed based on comments by IANA,
but in
>reading them, I found some problems with that argument, mainly that no
>operational delegation ever occured, even though IANA MAY have indicated
that
>they should proceed with a test bed.  Suggesting a company do a testing
>deployment is not equivelant to official recognition and operational
delegation.

Again, I may or may not agree. I do submit, however, that some of this has
been moving at too much the snail's pace. Agreed, this has been due to
contention on key issues, not the least of which is the attempt by some to
force a particular business model on any new TLD registries/registrars. The
other delaying factor is the repeated short-circuting/hijacking of valid
concensus processes. But, I submit that the primary key to this failure is
the resounding lack of response to legitimate leadership issues,
accountability/responsiveness/transparency. 

We have all grown callous, in our distrust of leadership in general,
through this entire ordeal. Heaven forbid that I speak ill of Postel, but
his unilateral dealings are one of the key factors generating this
distrust. Yesterday we found out just how "unilateral" those dealings have
been. Jon Postel never intended the IFWP process to succeed, since he was
"searching" for potential BoD members since last Jun98. Michael Sondow
raised a very valid point, "what gave him the right?" It is painfully
obvious that Postel was not attending the IFWP meetings in "good faith" It
is also painfully obvious that ICANN is Postel's legacy and was created
entirely by him, with very little external input. This is entirely
consistent with our valuation of the "NIH syndrome" factor present at
IANA/ISI/ICANN.

Personally, I think it would do more harm than good, were the present BoD
to step down. It would add nothing more, other than yet more delay, which
may prove fatal at this point. I do believe that Mike Roberts should
step-down and let a process, whereby another interim president is selected,
 be decided and deployed (Mike Roberts has already proven his
trustworthiness when, arguing strongly against an IFWP wrap-up meeting, he
failed to reveal that he was *already* annointed as the ICANN CEO by his
god-ship Jon Postel.) This, if for no  other reason, should be done to
rebuild the trust so urgently required of the InterNet stakeholders. I also
believe that the ORSC by-laws are substantively better than the current
ICANN proposal. The current proposal does nothing more than propogate the
situation that has already serially-raped the InterNet stakeholders. Of
course, we're not going to trust it. The track-record is already extant.


___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
 Who is John Galt?
 "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand


__________________________________________________
To view the archive of this list, go to:
http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp

To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
___END____________________________________________