Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Getting difficult to wade through the mass of mis-information.  Still, one 
does wish to keep matters clear, for the record:

At 07:28 PM 4/10/00 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>At 09:28 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>In any event, Kent made a factual observation that that list is the only 
>>one to have received wide-spread review.  As a statement of fact, the 
>>statement is correct.
>The result of the "wide-spread review" was a number of lawsuits (IOD, PGP 
>Media, etc.), and the

An extremely innovative interpretation of the history, in particular the 
creation of specific causation due to approximate correlation.

Who would ever have thought that creating a list of names, having some 
public review of it, and making modifications accordingly would be the 
specific cause of all those other actions?

I'll bet that most folks thought that this was an irrelevant detail.  (The 
one exception was the lawsuit that, effectively, got immediately tossed out.)


>>Or do you know of another list that has received anything close to an 
>>equivalent review?  While the current community involvement is larger 
>>than a couple of years ago, the review the name list received, back then, 
>>was nonetheless quite extensive and did result in change.
>Yes. Jon Postel's original IANA application list has never been challenged 
>after 4 years of peer review. Just ignored. It is the only list that meets 
>the NSF submission requirements (see below).
>http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

A compendium of everyone's suggestions is not a derived list.  In 
particular it is useless for an effort seeking 6-10 names.  Further, it is 
curious that "just ignoring" something does not constitute a rather 
resounding (and negative) review.

In case it is not clear, Simon, "review" is a process that engages a 
community of reviewers.  Jon's providing an archival record of the full 
list of names suggested to him does not qualify.


>>Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly 
>>changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven 
>>names?  (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.)
>Absolutely. The 7 IAHC TLDs were never been submitted to IANA via RFC1591 
>process. Jon Postel confirmed this in person just before he died. How 
>important is this? Read the following letter from

1994 document.  Doesn't really describe a process.  To the extent that it 
does, it has not reflected current practise for a very long time.

Moderately ironic is that this line of attack is using a document that has 
IANA as the source of the definition for procedure, but somehow the attack 
is trying at the same time to say that the IANA-authorized IAHC work was 
not valid.



>>The original list is cited in the Excecutive Summary of :
>>         <http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html>
>Don't forget the USG officially invalidated this "recommendation".

Simon, as I recall the USG made no statement at all about the name list or 
its development.  If you claim otherwise, please cite the specific text 
that supports your claim.

The rest of your note relied on the combination of a) sustaining this 
impressive confusion between the overall handling of the IAHC word, versus 
the specifics of the development and the name list, and b) treating the 
independent actions of independent name services as having any relevance at 
all to the IANA root.

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA