Re: War of Internet Governance: 1995 - ????

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 04:19:16PM -0500, Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
> At 12:49 PM 11/11/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Bob's approach suffers from the fact that there is no practical way to
> >implement it, because of crucial missing pieces.  What is missing is
> >any mechanism to assign legitimacy to one monopoly registrar over
> >another.  .per, for example, is the 3 letter abbreviation for Peru. 
> >If the government of Peru made a claim for that name, perhaps they
> >should get it.  Without any *policy* defined the fact that you have 
> >running registries is meaningless.
> 
> 
> At 12:08 PM 10/22/97 -0400, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> >There are a infinite number of hypothetical problems you can dream up.  COM
> >is the three letter ISO country code for the Comoros Islands.  So what?  
> 
> Ditto!

The point is that the existence of your running registry is just as 
meaningless, just as so what -- for a while I was running a TLD 
called .tld.  As you ditto, so what?

> >> eDNS was a response to the IAHC final draft.  Now that the IAHC has 
> >> redefined their role to that of a super-registrar, eDNS is no longer
> >> required for other free-market TLDs (like .per) to be entered directly 
> >> under root!  As we've argued all along, we have as much right for our 
> >> TLDs to be added as the so called IAHC does, if not more.
> >
> >You can argue all you like.  You don't have IANA's signature on any 
> >document, unlike the IAHC, nor were you appointed by the IANA to come up 
> >with a solution, like IAHC was.  If you want to get a policy defined you 
> >are going to have to get that policy recognized by IANA.
> 
> A fundamental question is why the IANA, a U.S. Government 
> funded contractor, should be allowed to "give" seven new gTLDs 
> to its self-selected representatives.

That was its function.  Anway, you can't have it both ways -- you
can't claim out of one side of your mouth that the IANA is
illegitimate, and insist out of the other side that it recognize your
TLDs. 


> (especially when it was 
> negotiated behind closed doors, sets up a Swiss-based cartel, 
> ignores prior Internet precedents, and is generally regarded 
> as an inappropriate power grab).

Please don't waste my time with this garbage propaganda.

> Why should the IANA be 
> allowed to *exclude* already operational TLDs and registries.

I ran .tld for several weeks -- just a minute -- I'll set it up again 
-- OK, now I have an operational registry for .TLD.  According to 
your logic, IANA has no right to exclude me.  Fabulous.

> Consider for a moment if Reed Hundt, as head of the FCC, had
> decided to allocate a portion of the radio spectrum to a group 
> that he formed, supported, appointed members to, and had an 
> ongoing and permanent role in.  Imagine if this group met behind 
> closed doors, came up with an impressive sounding plan, and got 
> all of his friends and associates to sign.  Imagine if this new 
> plan took radio spectrum away from already operational entities, 
> and excluded all other applications for radio spectrum.  Imagine 
> if this new organization was set up as a Swiss-based cartel. 
> 
> Well, this is similar to Jon Postel's arrangement with the IAHC.  

No, it isn't.  Jon Postel's "authority" stems entirely from his
acceptance by the network community.  It is a FACT that his authority
is based on community acceptance and consensus, not legalities.  It is
also a FACT that eDNS does not have community acceptance and
consensus, and therefore has no authority.  

> It was wrong when it was announced, and it is still wrong now.

Jon's authority really boils down to what the people who run the root
servers do.  The bottom line is, they pay attention to Jon Postel, and
they don't pay attention to you.  Jon has credibility and a reputation
for integrity that has been built up over many years.  You don't have 
either.

And all indications are that Jon's repution for integrity is 
well-justified.  So spare me the "it was wrong" propaganda.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			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