Re: [wg-c] Consensus call

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

My apologies to all. I got back from lunch, started reading my messages in
chronological order (hadn't caught up with them all from this morning, but
I believe in you read them newest->oldest in many cases you don't understand
what the thread is about), and replied before finishing reading everything.

Yours, John Broomfield.

> 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.
>