Subject: Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 18:00:42 -0800

>I, too, have long and publicly advised that those wishing to offer TLD
>service should formulate a proposal and pursue it, with IANA.  It has been
>interesting to observe that critics of the gTLD MoU have been more
>interested in being critics than in doing the legwork to develop such a
>proposal and develop support for it.

Hold on just one minute, please. Sir, what you say above it just
patently untrue, and I must point it out.

In July of 1996, Image Online Design formulated a proposal and 
pursued it with IANA. IANA told Image Online Design to put our
proposed registry (.WEB) online for operational testing. Image
Online Design has been a critic of the gTLD MoU, and Image
Online Design did the legwork and developed a system long
before the gTLD MoU was even a thought.

Only afterwards was the gTLD MoU created, and the IAHC
chose .WEB as one of the 7 recommended, knowing full well
that Image Online Design was running .WEB. Regardless of
your position on what IANA told Image Online Design, you cannot
deny that Image Online Design worked through the IANA process,
did the legwork, and, in fact, has been doing just that for over
2 years now.

It was very apparent, however, when the IAHC "took over" that
there was no room for other plans. Those who were involved
with the process know this full well, and are only now modifying
their positions. Nothing ever changes.
--
Christopher Ambler

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:42:09 -0800

>proposed registry (.WEB) online for operational testing. Image

Sorry.  I don't recall seeing the IODesign proposal on the net or the
attendant public discussion about it or the development of public support
for it or...  well, you get the idea I hope.

It is also important to keep in mind the evolution of this topic.  Way back
in the dark ages, like the at the start of the IAHC work the belief was
that it was appropriate to have one, public interest registry.  As I've
said before, my own thinking starting changing only this Spring.  I don't
recall when my own postings started suggesting the option of multiple
registries, but I'd guess at least 6 months.

In any event, the IODesign approach is in the for-profit category and so I,
for one, still do not support it.

>that Image Online Design was running .WEB. Regardless of

Whatever IODesign was doing, it had nothing to do with the IANA-authorized
DNS and so it was irrelevant to the work of the IAHC.  But do we really
need to rehash what a judge already wrote such unkind things about?

d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker                                          +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                           fax: +1 408 249 6205  
675 Spruce Dr.                               [email-masked]
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                    http://www.brandenburg.com

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:02:11 -0500 (EST)

I hope someone Dave will put some of the archives on line.  Ambler's
account is factual.  Your blythe disregard for facts more than six months
old is one of the most scary things about the MOUvement approach.

************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet               New Special Report: Building
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     Internet Infrastructure ($395)
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              www.cookreport.com/building.html
[email-masked]                       Index to 6 years of COOK Report,
glossary, executive summaries, special reports found at www.cookreport.com
************************************************************************

---

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 22:45:01 -0800

> for it or...  well, you get the idea I hope.

Read the 3 newdom archives (maybe you should have done this a year and
a half ago). There was even a proposal from Jon Postel. There were even
requirements posted by IANA staff which mandated online & operational
registries (that were actually taking registrations) in order to
qualify under Jon's draft. The rough consensus and working code which
was then established through organizations such as AlterNIC and eDNS
fullfilled the IANA requirements without breaking the IANA root in any
way, shape, or form.

> registries, but I'd guess at least 6 months.

Could you show me one? I've searched all the archives for the last
year, and can't find one single post from you discussing multiple
registries, except in the last um... few hours.

Thanks!

Best Regards,

Simon

--
The future is still out there...

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 23:40:41 -0800

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 10:45:01PM -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
> a half ago). 

Nonetheless, no design proposal was presented by IODesign.

> There was even a proposal from Jon Postel. There were even
> qualify under Jon's draft.

Simon, all those things were presented as discussion items on a 
mailing list, not official policy of any kind whatsoever.  Ambler 
and the others did everything they did without benefit of any 
official policy backing them up.  They were always billed as 
experimental.  IANA never sanctioned them as production registries in 
any way, shape, or form.

The actions of Chris Ambler and others was essentially an attempt at
adverse possession of a portion of the TLD space, not any kind of
sanctioned activity. 

> The rough consensus and working code which

Not IANA *requirements*.  IANA's *suggestions* of how, *hypothetically 
speaking*, IANA thought it should be.

This is in marked contrast with the IAHC effort, which was explicitly
chartered by IANA.  In other words, the IAHC effort, despite its
failings, does have an official sanction, with actual documents signed
by Jon Postel, head of IANA.  

None of the eDNS efforts have any such documents.  The only legally
interesting document on the scene is the judges decision to throw out
IODesign's request for a Temporary Restraining Order. 

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:06:09 -0800

Folks,

Some people indicate they want to pursue constructive discussion.  What is
happening, instead, is that we are rehashing the past.  It should be no
great surprise to any of us that re-hashing will not get us anywhere useful.

So I put it to us all:  If we wish to discuss things constructively, we
need to discuss the present, not the past.  It would help, of course, if we
also refrained from the personal attacks.  Again, the only way an exchange
like this can work is to move past the past.

d/

--------------------

---

From: Tripp Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 03:52:58 -0500 (EST)

> great surprise to any of us that re-hashing will not get us anywhere useful.

Could someone be so kind as to provide pointers to where those of us who
were not present for the past might find it archived? Though it's possible
(and perhaps likely) that you'll take that last statement humorously
(please do), I am sincere in my desire to learn more about what "has gone
before" before presuming to become vocal on any "side" of these issues.

Thanks!

- t.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Tripp Lilley, Perspex Imageworks, Inc. ([email-masked])
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
      "Give me a fast computer, for I intend to go in harm's way"
                      - updating John Paul Jones

---

From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 10:38:47 -0500

I shall once again suggest that the IETF pursue funding from either public
or private sourceds to moderate this mailing list.   This "discussion"
is making no forward progress.

This would be a wonderful application for the "Internet Infrastructure"
funds collected to register domain names.   And very appropriate.

Louis Mamakos

---

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:19:09 -0800

> Nonetheless, no design proposal was presented by IODesign.

Then how come we all knew about it? You cannot say IANA did not receive
a proposal from IODesign, just like you can't tell me that I did not
submit a proposal. The standard proposal is documented in RFC1591 and
available as a template from the InterNIC. No proposals have been made
public by IANA as far as I know.

Now if you're looking for a software design proposal, I'm sure Chris
will license you his registry design for the right price.

> experimental.  IANA never sanctioned them as production registries in

But IANA required them to be fully operational in order to qualify as
production servers. And this is the root of the issue.

> adverse possession of a portion of the TLD space, not any kind of

Wrong! I think the phrase is "competition for NSI". When this all
began, Jon Postel posted online that he did not understand the business
model for shared-tlds and so was only planning new monopoly registries
in his draft. This later changed after I started the shared-tld mailing
list (which was abandoned en mass after iahc-discuss was created).

> speaking*, IANA thought it should be.

Wrong! The discussion at IANA included "requirements for qualification"
under draft-postel. I was there. You were not. Bill Manning's published
notes from the meeting specifically say "requirements". Don't try to
change history around like Dave Crocker.

> by Jon Postel, head of IANA.

The IAHC documents are, by your own words, just suggestions. I think
the word used is "recommendations". Nothing the IAHC produced is a
requirement, it was all just recommendations. That was defined very
clearly by you and Mr Metzger over and over again. Now, according to Ed
Malloy of the State Dept, the gtld-MoU is  officially being terminated.
But then, it was very badly flawed, as I had already pointed out
several times.

Best Regards,

Simon

---

From: Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:25:02 +0100

> Malloy of the State Dept, the gtld-MoU is  officially being terminated.

[Sorry to trouble the IETF list with this trivia]

Simon,

As you know since I cc'd you on the query to him, I've asked Ed Malloy of US State 
about this claim. Please note:

The gTLD-MoU is a private sector agreement and no government or government 
official can terminate it. The only parties that can terminate such an agreement 
are the parties themselves.

Mr Malloy has asked me to relay onto the readers of these lists that he has 
said "nothing of the sort" and asked me to publicly relay to the readers of this list
that he "denies [making] such a statement".

Not only do I have tremendous respect for Ed's professionalism, I also regard him
as a friend. I'd appreciate it if you refrain from dragging him also into the less
than ethical exchanges on this list.

Robert
-- 
Robert Shaw <[email-masked]>
Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland

---

From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 08:51:37 -0800

At 8:25 PM +0100 2/5/98, Robert Shaw wrote:

> As you know since I cc'd you on the query to him, I've asked Ed Malloy of US
> State about this claim. Please note:
>
> official can terminate it. The only parties that can terminate such an
> agreement are the parties themselves.
>
> said "nothing of the sort" and asked me to publicly relay to the readers of
> this list that he "denies [making] such a statement".

Since you cc'd me on the the query to him, and I never got any reply
from him, we only have your word for this. No matter.

I asked Mr Magaziner, in person, the status of the gTLD-MoU. His reply,
in front of many other witnesses, was that it was dead. Next, I hear
that it is officially being terminated.

I don't know what the big deal is. We all told you it was a lemon. No matter.

I understand there is an offer on the table to carry up to five of the
undisputed gTLDs in the Open Root Server Confederation roots for
testing purposes to meet the USG's operational requirements.

It seems some of the businesses that were duped into paying $10,000
upfront plus $2000 per month for a non-existant service can, at least,
have the opportunity to save their livelihood after this fiasco. That
is the true spirit of co-operation on the net.

Best Regards,

Simon