Re: NSI's role in adding new roots

[avc@netnamesusa.com (Antony Van Couvering)]

Jay,

Are you really interested in what's happening, or just trying to score a
(very old) point?  You made hay out of this CNET report already, but think
again about "news.com" and who owns it and why they might not want new
domains to appear.  

Then look at the actual quoted material -- two words.

Then think again if you still consider that you have caught someone out.
You haven't.  You don't know what Heath actually said, and that old
two-word quote is still worthless.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, sure, but when you pull
the same old rabbit out of the same old hat the novelty wears off.

Antony


At 05:48 PM 11/12/97 -0500, Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
>
>gTLD-MoU supporters and registrars have been told this:
>
>     May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT 
>
>     The ad hoc committee has said it doesn't need the
>     U.S. government's approval to go ahead with its
>     plan. Appointed by the Internet Society, the
>     committee says it has direct control of the
>     computers that run the Net's addressing system
>     through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
>     (IANA). The government has "no choice" but to go
>     along with its plans, IAHC chair and ISOC
>     president Don Heath has said. 
>
>          http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10345,00.html
>
>Now, Dave Crocker is saying this:
>
>At 10:00 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:
>>We are fast approaching a critical moment.  The process of reaching it has
>>been extremely public, so there will be no surprise when the event occurs.
>>The moment is the request by IANA for addition of the new generic TLDs
>>(gTLDs) to the root DNS servers.  The request will be issued when the
>>gTLD-MoU's CORE project plans require it for testing, prior to live
>>registration operation of these gTLDs.  Nearly 90 companies have committed
>>significant funds and effort to this activity, so it's rather more than a
>>theoretical exercise.  It is a bottom-line matter for these companies.
>>
>>NSI is in an unfortunate position of being faced with open competition by
>>this enhancement and, at the same time, physically holding the master root
>>server to which these new TLDs will be added.  In some circles, having
>>control over a resource which enables the creation of competition for one's
>>organization would be called conflict of interest.
>>
>>So there is considerable import to the basis by which NSI chooses to claim
>>that it can add ISO (national) TLDs (nTLDs) but not add others, namely
>>gTLDs.  As a constructive member of the Internet community, NSI surely
>>wants to makes its position completely clear, as well as the basis for that
>>position.
>>
>>Your previous notes have cited text from the NSI proposal and have said
>>that portions of the proposal were incorporated by reference to the
>>Cooperative agreement.  The implication of these citations is that the
>>proposal only covers addition of nTLDs, presumably implying that since
>>addition of gTLDs (or any other kind of TLD) is not covered by that portion
>>of the proposal, NSI isn't obligated to perform such additions.
>>
>>What your notes have NOT done is to show a simple and complete sequence
>>which incorporates the text relevant to this question into that Agreement.
>>In other words, if NSI is planning to rely on this text as a basis for
>>refusing to take a direction from IANA, it needs to be more completely
>>developed.  To date, NSI has been completely responsive to IANA directions,
>>so that such a refusal is entirely without precedent.  As such, one would
>>hope that NSI has a clearly developed line of justification and, as a good
>>network citizen, has made that justification crystal clear sooner, rather
>>than later.
>>
>>Further, NSI has often cited the directive from NSF that it not add TLDs
>>without approval from the US government, yet the text in that directive is
>>not constrained and NSI has been continuing to add nTLDs.  The directive
>>does not distinguish gTLDs from nTLDs.  Instructions to add nTLDs have been
>>coming from IANA and the additions have taken place immediately.  Is there
>>documentation of NSF approval for each one of these changes?  If there is
>>not, then NSI has been showing selective interpretation of its instructions
>>and is not merely the mechanical participant it has been claiming.
>>
>>The moment that is approaching is the result of more than 1 year of open
>>discussion and debate, including many individuals, organizations and
>>countries all over the world.  90 companies are now engaged in producing
>>fully competitive registration services.  It will do the Internet community
>>no good service to refuse to take a directive from IANA and thereby create
>>an administrative crisis on the net.
>>
>>There is nothing unknown about the request that will be issued, except for
>>the precise date and we know that date is approaching quickly.  If NSI is
>>planning to refuse that request, it is time to tell that to the community
>>and explain the basis.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.  
>404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
>