Re: Expansion of the IAHC

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Simon Higgs writes:
> Just for the record, Perry has told me in private email, and in no
> uncertain terms, that his mind is already made up based on his
> "historical perspective of the net", and that he has already decided
> how he is going to vote.

Thats a complete mischaracterization of what I said to you. I
indicated that on one particular small issue that my mind was made up
-- that is, on the question of whether the registration of ISO-3166
domains by the IANA and the registration of other TLDs were ever
treated the same way. Your comment is utterly outrageous and
completely out of line with the facts, especially in the light of the
objective contents of the messages in question (see the attached).

> Perry's message below also indicates that this
> whole situation is very inflexible (an Ad Hoc Committee, huh?) and that
> it cannot/will not flex to meet the real issues on behalf of the
> internet community.

I indicated that I found your position on one narrow issue to be
specious. It was about a question of historical fact, and I believe
that question of historical fact is well settled. There is no room for
"opinion" about questions of fact -- either the ISO-3166 TLDs were
being treated differently or they weren't, and the fact is that they
have always been treated as a separate pool with different rules. I
see no more reason for flexibility in my opinion on this question of
fact than I would on the question of, say, whether I used to be a
college student -- both are simple questions of objective fact, and
both are easily answered from both my personal memory and the
documentary evidence.

Your mischaracterization of my remarks is astounding -- in fact,
outrageous.

Luckily, I have kept a complete log of my exhange on the subject,
including the private remarks. They were harsh, but as you can see
they completely support my position on the exchange.


Perry


Attached: The messages in question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
cc: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
Subject: Re: Prior Use - Experimental registries 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:06:11 PST."
             <v03007802aebc4e724201@[204.250.49.20]> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:44:09 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: owner-iahc-discuss@imc.org
Precedence: bulk


Speaking for myself and not the IAHC:

Simon Higgs writes:
> >
> >    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 exactly that in your copy modulo my bracketed comment.

> 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.

Yes it does. The intended interpretation is that it was unlikely that
TLDs other than ISO-3166 TLDs would be created. Thats why I did the
insertion above -- clearly marked with brackets and initials as my own
text. Your interpretation of the sentence in question would render it
meaningless, since saying "it is unlikely that TLDs other than members
of the set of ISO TLDs and members of the set of TLDs which are not
ISO TLDs will be created" is utterly empty of content. Unfortunately
the sentence was syntactically ambiguous, but it was not placed there
for decoration, and the intent is obvious to anyone familiar with the
situation.

I also noted...

> > 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.

I stand by that statement.

Anyway, you say this:

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

It is my opinion, based on what I consider to have been obvious and
pervasive community understanding, based on my own extensive memory of
the history of the DNS from its inception to the present (all of which
I personally observed), and on the basis of extensive available
textual evidence, that for many years ISO 3166 TLDs have been
processed, but that there was no expectation that any other top level
domains were to be created, perhaps ever, and there was no requirement
on the part of the IANA to process any requests for other TLDs in any
way whatsoever, nor any expectation that they would do so. In the last
two years, the notion of creating new iTLDs has gained strength, and
it is very possible, perhaps even likely, that will happen. However,
that was not the historical situation, especially not when the RFC was
drafted.

Permit me to be very, very blunt. It is further my opinion that this
is not even a borderline question of interpretation but in fact a
matter of obvious historical record. Your position is about as tenable
as a revisionist claim that firearms were not used in the Vietnam
War. Many things may be in dispute, but this isn't one of them. I
would have dismissed the comment out of hand were you not so insistant
on forwarding this utterly specious claim.


Perry
PS Again, speaking for myself and not for the IAHC.

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

To: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
cc: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: Prior Use - Experimental registries 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:43:57 PST."
             <v03007803aebd196549c0@[204.250.49.20]> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 17:05:31 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>


Simon Higgs writes:
> > Permit me to be very, very blunt. It is further my opinion that this
> > is not even a borderline question of interpretation but in fact a
> > matter of obvious historical record. Your position is about as tenable
> > as a revisionist claim that firearms were not used in the Vietnam
> > War. Many things may be in dispute, but this isn't one of them. I
> > would have dismissed the comment out of hand were you not so insistant
> > on forwarding this utterly specious claim.
> 
> Indeed it isn't. And you can't.

This ends here. I've said my peace. You may assume that I will keep my
opinion in mind when voting on proposals within the IAHC.

Perry

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

To: Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>
cc: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: Prior Use - Experimental registries 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:59:19 PST."
             <v03007802aebd69400cf1@[204.250.49.20]> 
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:53:59 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>


Simon Higgs writes:
> This isn't personal. But we are disagreeing over some fairly
> significant wording. You may be right over what you see as obvious
> historically, but that's your personal pre-RFC1591 view of the world.
> That is not the view shared by those interpreting RFC1591
> after-the-fact today.

As I've stated, your position is equivalent to claiming that the
Vietnam war didn't involve firearms or airplanes. Beyond the fact that
it is not a reasonable position, it completely disagrees with my
personal knowledge of the situation. The ISO TLDs were never treated
the same way as any other TLDs.

> To refuse to process those TLD applications in any way, shape, or
> form, will irrevocably damage the public's trust in IANA and it's
> ability to manage the namespace.

I did not state that anyone was going to refuse to process them. I
stated there was no obligation to do so created on the basis that ISO
TLD applications were being processed. I did not speak of any other
reason to process them or about whether they might be processed.

The ISO TLDs and the iTLDS are separate utterly disjoint sets and have
nothing to do with each other. The ISO TLD applications have been
processed for years, and will continue to be processed, and have never
been treated in the same way. The IAHC's work in all likelyhood will
have zero impact on the ISO TLDs. They are not connected to the iTLDs.

> You can write me off as a looney, but to me this is all just as obvious
> as your historical view of RFC1591. Those people who have followed
> RFC1591 to the letter and already submitted TLD requests per RFC1591

RFC1591 does not in any way authorize creation of new iTLDs, and in
fact stated that new ones were unlikely (at least at that time). The
only document that did mention creating new iTLDs was the Postel
draft, which was never officially adopted. This is not to say that
elements of the Postel draft or the bulk of it might not still be
adopted -- only that RFC1591 does not state that one may apply to
create new iTLDs.

Perry

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