Re: NSI's role in adding new roots

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

Antony and all,

Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 
> 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.

  Something is deffinatly amiss here.  But none the less there seems
to be a discreptancy.
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >

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