Re: Prior Use - Experimental registries

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 8:41 PM -0500 11/22/96, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> [Speaking as always for myself, and not for the IAHC in an official
>capacity.]
>

Good (now you're "an RFC terrorist"). ;-p

> Simon Higgs writes:
> > > I believe that the ISO TLDs and the US Government TLDs have never been
> > > in the same class as the iTLDs. The fact that applications for ISO
> > > TLDs have been processed over the last year and likely will continue
> > > to be processed is unrelated to the question of how non ISO two letter
> > > TLDs such as the iTLDs are being handled.
>
> > Can you, [SNIP], point me to the relevent
> > documentation that supports that statement?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> However, anyone on earth can read RFC 1591, which makes it fairly
> clear that at the time of the writing of that document, it was
> expected that the only applications that would be processed would be
> for ISO two letter TLDs.
>
> Quoting:
>
>    It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs [other than ISO-3166
>    TLDs -- pm] will be created.
>

S'funny. It doesn't say that in my copy. It says:

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.

It DOES NOT single out ISO-3166 TLDs at all.

> I'm sure other interpretations of the line in question are possible --
> my insertion there could be disputed by some particularly partisan
> individual -- but this is the only interpretation that is is at all
> consistant with what almost the entire community knew at the
> time. Indeed, I will state that for my part, I consider any other
> interpretation to be on its face absurd. Prior to NSI beginning
> charges for registration in .COM and .NET, there was no expectation in
> the community that any new TLDs were going to be allocated at all
> other than ISO TLDs. Everyone knew that as national authorities and
> similar organizations requested ISO TLDs they were allocated them, and
> that other than that the top level of the DNS was closed.
>

Then I guess the entire community's expectation for no new applications
isn't in RFC1591 either:

 3.  The Administration of Delegated Domains

[SNIP]

   While all requests for new top-level domains must be sent to the
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Internic (at hostmaster@internic.net), the regional registries are
   often enlisted to assist in the administration of the DNS, especially
   in solving problems with a country administration.  Currently, the
   RIPE NCC is the regional registry for Europe and the APNIC is the
   regional registry for the Asia-Pacific region, while the INTERNIC
   administers the North America region, and all the as yet undelegated
   regions.

[SNIP]


And now further down is something very elegant, which applies to every
TLD application filed to date with IANA through the InterNIC (and I
can't help wondering why that word "all" is in there):

      This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal
      basis.  No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come
      from customers of some other business related to the manager --
      e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data
      network provider.  There can be no requirement that a particular
      mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.

      There are no requirements on subdomains of top-level domains
      beyond the requirements on higher-level domains themselves.  That
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      is, the requirements in this memo are applied recursively.  In
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      particular, all subdomains shall be allowed to operate their own
      domain name servers, providing in them whatever information the
      subdomain manager sees fit (as long as it is true and correct).


Now is it getting any clearer? There is an existing procedure... repeat
after me...


Simon

--
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.