Re: [wg-c] Consensus call

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

Hello? I was told that this topic cannot be discussed here.

One more message, and I'll start discussing it again, as nobody
seems to be respecting the request of the group chair.

Your choice.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Charles Broomfield" <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>
To: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.net>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call


>
> Simon Higgs wrote:
> > Who is claiming anything? There's a list of legally binding TLD
>                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > applications filed, per RFC1591, sitting in a file in IANA/ICANN.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Wow, that's a bit rich... If so, then (as it's legally binding), any court
> will automatically allow those into the legacy roots no doubt, so we have
no
> further need to discuss it, just wait for the positive outcome from your
> lawsuits (still waiting...).
>
> > The NSF
> > has made it clear that only TLDs filed in way will be considered:
> >
> > http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg
> > "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only
in
> > accordance with Request For Comments 1591."
>
> It's nice and easy to quote one liners that can help towards ones own
goal,
> and forget about the whole context of the phrase within a letter (and I'm
> NOT trying to second guess anyone).
> In any case, we could say that RFC-1591 has been applied flawlessly so
far,
> as we have from RFC-1591:
> ---
> 2.  The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names
>
>    In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
>    hierarchy of names.  The root of system is unnamed.  There are a set
>    of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  These are the
>    generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
>    letter country codes from ISO-3166.  It is extremely unlikely that
>    any other TLDs will be created.
> ---
>
> The phrase (within context) to note carefully being the last one. If we
> decide that RFC-1591 should be followed, then we have extreme unlikelyness
> that other TLDs will be created.
>
> Also, another point within RFC-1591 (accepting that "extremely unlikely"
does
> mean "relevantly possible") is:
> ---
>    4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that
>       the designated manager is the appropriate party.
> ---
> And *THERE* we would probably all agree is what we've been fighting over
for
> the past few years, in finding a way to designate the appropiate
party(ies)
> as manager(s) of any new TLD(s).
>
> RFC-1591 doesn't talk about FCFS. FCFS was(is?) generally used by the
> hostmaster@internic.net robot but for com/net/org registrations.
>
> As non-ccTLDs (as indicated by RFC-1591) are extremely unlikely, a lot
> of fuzzy nice things have to happen, no *clear* procedures were available
> (RFC-1591 says in various places to forget about rights and ownership,
which
> is precisely what entities like IOD want to talk about: the rights and
> ownership of the TLDs), and forums were being created precisely to discuss
> these issues, then (in light of that) it is understandable that the
requests
> were queued. In fact it would have even been understandable for them to
have
> been dumped all together!!!
>
> FCFS would come into play if significant parties agreed that both
requesters
> were equal (my opinion). As yet, WG-C doesn't seem to agree on who should
be
> the designated manager for any given TLD, and I'd say that we could
consider
> WG-C as a group of interested parties. So, in that light RFC-1591 would
not
> allow for any delegations yet (ever?). Where is the problem?
>
> > What part of this don't you understand? Are you still a sore loser
because
> > you can't have your own ccTLD?
>
> You can't on the one hand say "let's apply RFC-1591" and just pick and
> choose which parts you want to apply. Either you apply it whole, or you
> discard it whole, or you draft a new document keeping the bits you want
and
> adding/discarding other (and then it is -of course- no longer RFC-1591).
>
> Have fun, but I don't read RFC-1591 as being "legally binding" nor even if
> it were do I read it in such a manner that would say that Simon Higgs gets
> the TLDs he wants.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.