Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

There are a very small handful of companies (less than 5) that put together
registries back in the days of Postel I and Postel II, after being told (on
public mailing lists by Postal and Manning themselves) that the Postel II
draft was to be an RFC. This was contemporary with IANA, in the form
of Postel and Manning, taking applications for new registries in the form
of NIC templates.

These are facts, and nobody disputes them. The postings by Postel and
Manning are still available as is the IANA list.

As I said, there are less than 5 companies that put together running code
based on those events. Of those 5, I know of only IOD that is still
running today. I suspect that of the other 5, one or two might still
be running.

I would also make a position for CORE as a registry, as they are a
business entity that spent considerable money to create their registry
(regardless of the poor choice of TLDs, including two that are in
violation of prior use and trademark) and did so based upon the
expectations given to them by IANA at the time.

That makes 2 pioneers that I know of. Even if all 5 from the Postel
II days are still running, that makes 6 pioneers who established
registries based upon the urgings of IANA. There is no question
as to who the pioneers are - they can show continuous operation,
they can show participation in the fora, and they can show NIC
templates to IANA based on IANA's request for them.

I suspect that if a serious call for pioneers to self-identify themselves
were put out, including a simple check of whether or not they
meet even the minimum requirements, you'll find that there
are no more than 5 pioneers who are up to the task of being
put in the testbed.

You have consensus for 6-10 new TLDs. Call it 10, then. Take
the 5 pioneers and add 5 more to be determined. Make all of them
(pioneers included) have to meet clear and objective criteria. Make
the criteria tough, as this is a testbed. We've got a start with the
registrar criteria. Toughen it and move along.

Perform the objective examination and then start the testbed.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "rmjmeyer" <rmjmeyer@magnetpoint.com>
Cc: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>; "Paul
Garrin" <pg@name-space.com>; "Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 16-Mar-2000 rmjmeyer wrote:
> > To then turn about and slap all the alternate root-server operators in
the
> > face, with disavowel, is rude, unnecessary, and mean-spirited.
>
> To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the
people
> who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes
that
> have led us all to be here.
>
> They can continue their operations, in their own "virtual internet."  But
they
> have no bearing here.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE40Du88zLmV94Pz+IRAiOhAKD83oTH2To0QiC3Q45ygiu4MFdI4gCgy557
> ARaerw1p3vshqRmbZxNAfoA=
> =pRd9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----