RE: Draft New Draft

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Javier,

I believe you to be operating under a misunderstanding. Every member of
ORSC has a vested interest in opening up the root-servers to additional
TLDs. Yet, you are claiming the opposite of ORSC. This indicates a basic
misunderstanding that damages your credibility. You really should find out
more about an entity before you go taking pot-shots at them. Especially, on
a topic that cuts so close to the core belief. Your earlier mis-statement
about ORSC not wanting new TLDs is patently wrong and an polar opposite
view of what permeates the very being of the ORSC web-site. That ORSC is
willing to discuss mediated issues only indicates the open attitude of the
ORSC. Let me be real explicit, the very name, ORSC, means OPEN ROOT SERVER
CONFEDERATION. It is the very opposite of closing the roots.

For you to maintain that, ORSC tends to prevent new TLDs from being entered
into the roots, only makes you look foolish.

At 10:36 PM 1/31/99 +0100, Javier SOLA wrote:
>Anthony,
>
>I was not talking about 1591 nor conspiracy. I personally think that 1591
>does not mean much when we talk about TLD "ownership". It is a standard of
>the community, it does not really stop a country from getting its TLD back
>if it really wants it.
>
>What I though it was funny was ORSC claiming veto power for registries on
>registry policy. To me it means that registries are more powerful than
>ICANN, as they can stop ICANN policy. On this line, NSi could stop any new
>TLD or registry, as this may harm its economical interests. What do we need
>an ICANN for if NSi is stronger than ICANN?. What we are looking forward to
>is a fair regulating body that will put common interests above particular
>interest. This would work the opposite way.
>
>BY the way Jay, I think that your interpretation is the opposite of what it
>says. The way it is written NSi could take ICANN to court on the basis of
>them harming NSi's economical interests if they include new TLDs (ccTLDs
>included). 
>
>It would be suicide for ICANN to accept a proposal for a DNSO on those
>lines, they would be signing all their power of to the registries.
>
>Javier
>
>
>
>At 15:02 31/01/99 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>>Javier,
>>
>>Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.  Look before you leap.  The idea of
>>putting in RFC 1591 was mine, and I still like it.  I was asked for specific
>>language, and I neglected to supply it, and the language that was put in
>>missed something that John Reynolds caught.
>>
>>NSI never suggested anything along these lines.  I think we should take out
>>the last line.  That way, we are only talking about *due process*.  Do you
>>think that must originate from NSI also?
>>
>>Antony
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
>>> Javier SOLA
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 1:34 PM
>>> To: DNS Policy; DNSO
>>> Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is correct. ORSC defends that the "status quo" of NSi and any other
>>> registry be maintained. Making ICANN, DNSO and all our work for the last
>>> two years useless. If their document did not have the ORSC signature, I
>>> would have assumed that the origin was NSi.
>>>
>>> The interesting part is that it goes clearly against the "public" interest
>>> of ORSC members, who would like to have registries that compete with the
>>> existing ones. This provision would make it utterly impossible.
>>>
>>> Javier
>>>
>>> At 11:23 31/01/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>>> >
>>> >from the ORSC/AIP "Draft New Draft":
>>> >> At the inception of the DNSO, its members and supporters reaffirm the
>>> >> historical rules under which all participants in the domain name system
>>> >> have operated to date. Nothing about the creation of the DNSO
>>> is meant to
>>> >> overturn the status quo as it exists at the inception.
>>> Specifically, the
>>> >> DNSO reaffirms the rules under which the TLD registries and registrars
>>> >> have operated to date. In support of such, the DNSO recongizes that
>>> >> current registries operate under the current RFCs (1591 in particular)
>>> >> and shall continue to do so until such time the RFC's have
>>> been ammended
>>> >> or replaced through due process. Due process to be accepteable by each
>>> >> individual registry, individually.
>>> >
>>> >So *any* registry can veto *any* change to existing policies, including
>>> >expansion of the TLD space?  RFC 1591 explicitly *lists* all gTLDs - any
>>> >additions require that it be amended.  Under this language, NSI
>>> or any other
>>> >registry could block addition of new TLDs simply by refusing to assent to
>>> >it.  Clearly unacceptable.
>>> >
>>>
>> 


___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer - 
e-mail:                                      mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com
Internet phone:                                hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages:             http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site:                           http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________ 
                       KISS ... gotta love it!