Re: NSI's role in adding new roots

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jay and Dave,

  Ok Dave, your turn to rebutt.  If you can?

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

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. (Soon to be INEG. INC) Stay tunned! 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu