From owner-ap-ntld Fri Feb 6 18:53:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id SAA19970 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:53:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (mycity.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.163]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id SAA19945; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:52:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.108]) by mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.6/3.6Wbeta4-06/30/97) with ESMTP id SAA09562; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:45:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP (sekaido-bldg069.prv.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [192.168.134.69]) by adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.5/3.4W405/16/97) with SMTP id SAA11633; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:45:19 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <9802060945.AA01664@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> From: Toru Takahashi Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:45:17 +0900 To: apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, paf@swip.net, apng-all@apng.org Cc: rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp Subject: xTLD BoF and mailinglist MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail 1.32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi, all, I would like to be aware of having xTLD BoF in APRICOT conference on Feb. 18 th at Shangri La Hotel Manila, Philippine. Time: 8:00pm to 9:30pm. Please see APRICOT website at URL: http://www.apricot.org/ and join. I will be chair of the BoF. In these days, there have been big efforts to create new gTLD by Internet Community. As a result, 88 registrars are assigned and formed CORE. In other hand US Gov.issued so called Green Paperon Jan. 30. There are some confusion among PAB, CORE and POC. Green Paper raised problems of Registry and Registrar architecture, at the same time. Root servers are key of Registry. We will have Mr.Ira Magaziner as a keynote speaker on the same day in the morning. He is responsible for the Green Paper. And Jon Postel of IANA is asking to make regional groups of country code TLD(or National TLD). This is another issue of TLD concern. Many national NICs may concern. I expect Mr. Patrik Faelstoroem(member of POC) to join and speak about whole situation of CORE/POC. And Mr. Adam Peak(Glocom) to report about the status of ccTLD. Are there any reports or comments? I also expect all of you to address your opinion on registry/registrar issues. Already mailinglist is set up by David R. Conrad as follows: ap-tld-request@apnic.net There are two mailinglist; gTLD and nTLD. You can cancel any of them. See you soon in Manila. Toru Takahashi -------------------------------------------------------- TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp. Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ) Phone:+81-3-3341-6302 Fax:+81-3-3341-2881 Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-ap-ntld Fri Feb 6 19:10:57 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id TAA20226 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:10:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from nix.swip.net (nix.swip.net [192.71.220.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id TAA20211; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:10:50 +0900 (JST) Received: from think.swip.net (workstation1.swip.net [130.244.254.1]) by nix.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA01324; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:13:14 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980206111138.0083dd40@nix.swip.net> X-Sender: paf@nix.swip.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 11:11:38 +0100 To: Toru Takahashi From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: xTLD BoF and mailinglist Cc: apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, apng-all@apng.org, rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp In-Reply-To: <9802060945.AA01664@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 18:45 1998-02-06 +0900, Toru Takahashi wrote: >I expect Mr. Patrik Faelstoroem(member of POC) to join and speak about whole >situation of CORE/POC. That is correct. >Are there any reports or comments? As of today, POC and CORE are still working as if nothing has happened (almost). POC is though communicating with mr Magaziner and others responsible for the green paper to see if there is a way of getting some common understanding of the problems surrounding the gTLDs. We especially are pointing out the problems they will have because of the lack of details in their paper. We also see that Jon Postel and IANA have a firm support from people in the IETF and on the Internet arena, and that support IS important regardless what happens. I will encourage people to, whatever the solution will be at the end of this discussion, support IANA and the Internet principles which so far has ruled, so mr Magaziner understands that he can not "just" descide what should happen. Especially we which are not US-based companies must be a bit worried that the US Government tries to (still) control the Internet which they seem to think is not international, but belong to the US. To conclude, discussions are going on, and those discussions are built on a foundation of arguments that the Internet and especially IANA do have firsm support from the Internet community. Because of that, this is maybe more a request for support from people than a description of what is happening. Do not be afraid of sending mail to mr Magaziner being worried about the change in how Internet is developed, and how the Internet suddenly becomes a question for the USG. Patrik Email: paf@swip.net URL: http://www.tele2.se PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975 D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602 From owner-ap-ntld Fri Feb 6 21:13:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id VAA21638 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:13:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from copper.singnet.com.sg (copper.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.30]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id VAA21623; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 21:13:19 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from isjfvzjl (ts900-1718.singnet.com.sg [165.21.159.134]) by copper.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA29006; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 20:14:12 +0800 (SGT) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 98 20:15:15 Subject: RE: [faoc] xTLD BoF and mailinglist To: apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, paf@swip.net, apng-all@apng.org, Toru Takahashi X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I am sorry that I am unable to attend. I really would have liked to but your session clashes with the BoF for Women in IT that I am organising. Pity because many from my BOF will also be interested in yours. Is there no way of rescheduling. If not, good luck and I am sure it will be a success. Thank you. Laina RG --- On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:45:17 +0900 Toru Takahashi wrote: Hi, all, I would like to be aware of having xTLD BoF in APRICOT conference on Feb. 18 th at Shangri La Hotel Manila, Philippine. Time: 8:00pm to 9:30pm. Please see APRICOT website at URL: http://www.apricot.org/ and join. I will be chair of the BoF. In these days, there have been big efforts to create new gTLD by Internet Community. As a result, 88 registrars are assigned and formed CORE. In other hand US Gov.issued so called Green Paperon Jan. 30. There are some confusion among PAB, CORE and POC. Green Paper raised problems of Registry and Registrar architecture, at the same time. Root servers are key of Registry. We will have Mr.Ira Magaziner as a keynote speaker on the same day in the morning. He is responsible for the Green Paper. And Jon Postel of IANA is asking to make regional groups of country code TLD(or National TLD). This is another issue of TLD concern. Many national NICs may concern. I expect Mr. Patrik Faelstoroem(member of POC) to join and speak about whole situation of CORE/POC. And Mr. Adam Peak(Glocom) to report about the status of ccTLD. Are there any reports or comments? I also expect all of you to address your opinion on registry/registrar issues. Already mailinglist is set up by David R. Conrad as follows: ap-tld-request@apnic.net There are two mailinglist; gTLD and nTLD. You can cancel any of them. See you soon in Manila. Toru Takahashi -------------------------------------------------------- TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp. Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ) Phone:+81-3-3341-6302 Fax:+81-3-3341-2881 Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan ------------------------------------------------------ -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 2/6/98 Time: 8:15:15 PM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 00:36:21 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id AAA23055 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:36:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id AAA23038 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:36:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.03.0014/1.abie) with ESMTP id ba026235 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 10:38:37 -0500 X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:38:35 -0500 To: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, paf@swip.net, apng-all@apng.org From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Cc: rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp In-Reply-To: <199802061236.UAA25656@mirage.irdu.nus.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <15383703000497@chaos.com> Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Dear Takahashi-san, It is important and useful have a BOF on this subject, as well as getting a diversity of participants at the APRICOT meeting - especially Ira Magaziner. It is unfortunate that so many of the current forums and parties dealing with this subject are remote from the AP region. Let me assure you that the Green Paper process has now been accepted by virtually all parties as the means for moving forward and achieving sustainable, lawful administrative arrangements for the Internet. It will be critically important for AP communities to get involved in the Green Paper process, as well as the various activities and bodies that flow out of it. At the Internet Executive Summit held this week in the Washington DC area, the subject of participating parties was treated. An overview on the subject can be found at: --tony From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 01:09:54 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id BAA23287 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:09:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from nix.swip.net (nix.swip.net [192.71.220.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA23273; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:09:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from think.swip.net (workstation1.swip.net [130.244.254.1]) by nix.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA15277; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 17:11:53 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980206171028.0084b500@nix.swip.net> X-Sender: paf@nix.swip.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 17:10:28 +0100 To: Tony Rutkowski From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Cc: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, apng-all@apng.org, rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC In-Reply-To: <15383703000497@chaos.com> References: <199802061236.UAA25656@mirage.irdu.nus.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 10:38 1998-02-06 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote: >Let me assure you that the Green Paper >process has now been accepted by virtually all parties >as the means for moving forward and achieving sustainable, >lawful administrative arrangements for the Internet. Well, it depends on what you mean by "accepted", but we don't have to have that discussion here and now. Let's talk in Manila. I can just say that there are a number of things in the green paper that CORE, POC, ISOC and IANA does not agree with mr Magaziner on, even though the general plan is almost exactly what IAHC/POC have in our papers. Details are missing though -- and the devil is in the details unfortunately. Patrik Email: paf@swip.net URL: http://www.tele2.se PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975 D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602 From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 01:38:36 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id BAA23535 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:38:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from fractal.chaos.com (fractal.chaos.com [206.5.17.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id BAA23510 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:38:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from [206.5.17.2] by fractal.chaos.com (NTMail 3.03.0014/1.abie) with ESMTP id za026259 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 11:41:11 -0500 X-Sender: amr@fractal.chaos.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 11:41:09 -0500 To: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= From: Tony Rutkowski Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Cc: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, apng-all@apng.org, rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980206171028.0084b500@nix.swip.net> References: <15383703000497@chaos.com> <199802061236.UAA25656@mirage.irdu.nus.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <16411091700517@chaos.com> Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Patrik, >I can just say that there are a number of things in the green paper that >CORE, POC, ISOC and IANA does not agree with mr Magaziner on, even though >the general plan is almost exactly what IAHC/POC have in our papers. >Details are missing though -- and the devil is in the details unfortunately. I guess maybe that's my point. The parties you mention are only a small subset of a much larger array of parties - especially the diverse Internet industry. Few parties, if any, have completely accepted any results - because only the general outline of those results are portrayed. Thus far, it appears to look good to the industry, although this will be a continuing, iterative process. What is important is that there is now a lawful, open, broadly participatory process for achieving those results, that establishes a level playing field rather than one centered around only a handful of players. There is also a high degree of trust in the fairness and neutrality of the process and the people/person responsible for the process. This is plainly evident at all of the many large industry forums to which Magaziner has made presentations over the past month, and especially the past week. --tony From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 01:50:00 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id BAA23659 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:50:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from zinc.singnet.com.sg (zinc.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.31]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA23645; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 01:49:53 +0900 (JST) From: laina@singnet.com.sg Received: from isjfvzjl (ts900-6704.singnet.com.sg [165.21.164.56]) by zinc.singnet.com.sg (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA25681; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:52:46 +0800 (SGT) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 98 00:46:47 Subject: RE: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list To: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, paf@swip.net, apng-all@apng.org, Tony Rutkowski X-PRIORITY: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Chameleon 5.0, TCP/IP for Windows, NetManage Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Tony on your point on the need to meet with Mr Ira Magaziner as well. For your information and the information of others, Mr Magaziner has kindly agreed to be present and give comments at the OPening Reception of APRICOT on the evening of the 17th. He will stay around to network and get feedback and will stay on the next day to give the opening keynote address at APRICOT on the 18th. He has been very open to APIA and APPle, and has met with us on one occasion already. He is very keen to get other AP input and he has taken great efforts to reschedule his itenary to be present at APRICOT. We really appreciate this and hope that you will come to support this. I will strongly encourage people interested in this issue to turn up on the 17th and 18th to meet with Mr Magaziner and staff at APRICOT. For more details on APRICOT, please check www.apricot.net. Thank you. Laina RG APPLe Chair --- On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:38:35 -0500 Tony Rutkowski wrote: Dear Takahashi-san, It is important and useful have a BOF on this subject, as well as getting a diversity of participants at the APRICOT meeting - especially Ira Magaziner. It is unfortunate that so many of the current forums and parties dealing with this subject are remote from the AP region. Let me assure you that the Green Paper process has now been accepted by virtually all parties as the means for moving forward and achieving sustainable, lawful administrative arrangements for the Internet. It will be critically important for AP communities to get involved in the Green Paper process, as well as the various activities and bodies that flow out of it. At the Internet Executive Summit held this week in the Washington DC area, the subject of participating parties was treated. An overview on the subject can be found at: --tony -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Laina Raveendran Greene E-mail: laina@singnet.com.sg Date: 2/7/98 Time: 12:46:47 AM This message was sent by Chameleon ------------------------------------- From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 08:41:06 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id IAA26124 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:41:06 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA26108; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:40:59 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.33.105]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28929; Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:43:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 6 Feb 98 18:43:27 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 6 Feb 98 18:42:57 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 6 Feb 98 18:42:51 EDT Message-ID: <34DB9FFA.2F742B3@syr.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 18:42:50 -0500 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toru Takahashi CC: apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, paf@swip.net, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp Subject: Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list References: <199802061236.UAA25656@mirage.irdu.nus.sg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk I think there were some misconceptions in this message that need to be addressed directly. The gTLD-MoU formed by ITU, ISOC, and WIPO cannot be equated with "The Internet Community." Nor is it accurate to say that the US Government is interfering with the actions of this so-called "community." Indeed, this way of thinking is one of the reasons why the transition to a fully international Internet administered by a body independent of the US government is so difficult. Mr. Faelstoroem wrote: >We also see that Jon Postel and IANA have a firm support from people in >the IETF and on the Internet arena, and that support IS important regardless >what happens. I will encourage people to, whatever the solution will be >at the end of this discussion, support IANA and the Internet principles >which so far has ruled, so mr Magaziner understands that he can not "just" >descide what should happen. Especially we which are not US-based >companies must be a bit worried that the US Government tries to (still) control >the Internet which they seem to think is not international, but belong to >the US. Some simple facts: * Jon Postel and IANA are funded by the US Government. They act under contract to the US government. They do not have the authority to make international treaties or to reconfigure the administration of the Internet on their own, no matter how much support they have among the IETF. * the Internet has grown vastly beyond the IETF and the traditional "Internet community." Indeed, it is inaccurate to view the Internet as a "community" anymore. It is a global arena for communication and commerce and its operations therefore must be subjected to more formal legal and business procedures. * Mr. Magaziner is not "just deciding" what happens. The US government has held a formal notice of inquiry, it has consulted widely, it has issued a green paper, and, most importantly, it holds the real legal authority over the root. The issue is not WHETHER the US government has the authority to do this. The issue is how to get that authority OUT of its hands and into a wider, international body. Magaziner and others in the US govt definitely want to do this. But the process must occur under US law, because that is where IANA and the roots reside. If you want to get control of the Internet out of the hands of the US government, this is really the only way to do it. --Milton Mueller Toru Takahashi wrote: > In these days, there have been big efforts to create new gTLD by > Internet Community. As a result, 88 registrars are assigned and formed CORE. In > > other hand US Gov.issued so called Green Paper on Jan. 30. There are some > confusion among PAB, CORE and POC. Green Paper raised problems of Registry and > Registrar architecture, at the same time. Root servers are key of Registry. > > And Jon Postel of IANA is asking to make regional groups of country code > TLD(or National TLD). This is another issue of TLD concern. Many national NICs > may concern. > > I expect Mr. Patrik Faelstoroem(member of POC) to join and speak about > whole situation of CORE/POC. And Mr. Adam Peake (Glocom) to report about the > status of ccTLD. Are there any reports or comments? > > I also expect all of you to address your opinion on registry/registrar > issues. Already mailing list is set up by David R. Conrad as follows: > ap-tld-request@apnic.net > There are two mailinglist; gTLD and nTLD. You can cancel any of them. > > See you soon in Manila. > > Toru Takahashi > > -------------------------------------------------------- > TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP > http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html > Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp. > Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ) > Phone:+81-3-3341-6302 > Fax:+81-3-3341-2881 > Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku, > Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan > ------------------------------------------------------ > > [RESPONSE FROM PATRICK CONCATENATED BELOW] > > From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= > To: Toru Takahashi > Subject: Re: xTLD BoF and mailinglist > Cc: apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, > dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, > apng-all@apng.org, rconnell@psi-japan.comenruiries@moniker.net, > registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, > mao@cnnic.net.cn, > royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, > info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, > info@capital.net.au, > arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@TokyoNet.AD.JP > > At 18:45 1998-02-06 +0900, Toru Takahashi wrote: > >I expect Mr. Patrik Faelstoroem(member of POC) to join and speak about whole > >situation of CORE/POC. > > That is correct. > > >Are there any reports or comments? > > As of today, POC and CORE are still working as if nothing has happened > (almost). POC is though communicating with mr Magaziner and others > responsible for the green paper to see if there is a way of getting some > common understanding of the problems surrounding the gTLDs. We > especially > are pointing out the problems they will have because of the lack of > details in their paper. > > We also see that Jon Postel and IANA have a firm support from people in > the > IETF and on the Internet arena, and that support IS important regardless > what happens. I will encourage people to, whatever the solution will be > at > the end of this discussion, support IANA and the Internet principles > which > so far has ruled, so mr Magaziner understands that he can not "just" > descide what should happen. Especially we which are not US-based > companies > must be a bit worried that the US Government tries to (still) control > the > Internet which they seem to think is not international, but belong to > the US. > > To conclude, discussions are going on, and those discussions are built > on a > foundation of arguments that the Internet and especially IANA do have > firsm > support from the Internet community. Because of that, this is maybe more > a > request for support from people than a description of what is happening. > Do > not be afraid of sending mail to mr Magaziner being worried about the > change in how Internet is developed, and how the Internet suddenly > becomes > a question for the USG. > > Patrik > > Email: paf@swip.net URL: http://www.tele2.se > PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975 D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602 From owner-ap-ntld Sat Feb 7 17:36:18 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id RAA29313 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:36:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from nix.swip.net (nix.swip.net [192.71.220.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA29293; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 17:36:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (paf@localhost) by nix.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA04118; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:38:35 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 09:38:35 +0100 (MET) From: Patrik Faltstrom X-Sender: paf@nix To: Milton Mueller cc: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list In-Reply-To: <34DB9FFA.2F742B3@syr.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Milton Mueller wrote: > The gTLD-MoU formed by ITU, ISOC, and WIPO cannot be equated with > "The Internet Community." It was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, not ITU and WIPO. > Nor is it accurate to say that the US Government is > interfering with the actions of this so-called "community." > Indeed, this way of thinking is one of the reasons why the transition to > a fully international Internet administered by a body independent of the > US government is so difficult. Ok, more facts: The POC is not the same thing as CORE. Our responsibility have been from the beginning to listen to what people, not only in the IETF, think, and compile ideas that comes from all various sources. One of the main things that have been discussed for a long long time, especially with governments all over the world, and organisations like MITI in Japan, is how a registry is run, under what rules, and under what forms the registry and the registrar work. So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and more important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the registries are to exist. You have to think about how to handle disputes between domain name holders and the whole domain name system, regarding exclusions and disputes in all gTLDs. You also have to think about disputes between registrars, and the registrar and the registry. The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after discussing this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries, to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the UK which have a system that works! The "fun stuff" should be to be a registrar, not a registry! The problem POC (not CORE, remember that!) see with the green paper is that it restarts the discussion, and that can be ok, BUT it does not start from the beginning!!!! It already draws some conclusions on how the registry should act -- like the fact that each registry should have one gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which the trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so difficult to handle. So, if we should start from the beginning which the GP does, let's start from the beginning. The GP does NOT start from the beginning at all. There are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you will encounter not until you start writing down the details. Patrik From owner-ap-ntld Mon Feb 9 08:58:20 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id IAA09771 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:58:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (mycity.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.163]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA09755; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:58:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.108]) by mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.6/3.6Wbeta4-06/30/97) with ESMTP id JAA24402; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:01:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP (office-max02.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.178]) by adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.5/3.4W405/16/97) with SMTP id JAA27986; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:01:07 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <9802082358.AA01692@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> From: Toru Takahashi Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:58:10 +0900 To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Cc: mathias@staff.singnet.com.sg, davidc@apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net Subject: Re: xTLD BOF - questions? In-Reply-To: <09495928907490@glocom.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail 1.32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Thanks, Adam. I am staying Beijing right now with heavy cold, cough. ajp@glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) wrote$B!'(J >Toru, thanks for including my name in your note about the Manila xTLD >BOF. Yes, I would like to participate. > >I am copying this note to David Conrad and Mathias Koerber: David >knows about this proposal, and Mathias and I spoke about some similar >issues recently. > >Since the domain BOF in Kuala Lumpur, I have been trying to find time >to create a more permanent record of AP region domain name registry >related information. I could not attend the BoF. I arrived too late because of company annual meeting. >Were you at the Kuala Lumpur BOF? There was some discussion of the >IAHC proposal and problems with generic TLDs, but most of the meeting >(and I thought the most interesting part) was people from different >countries describing how the registries in the region administered >their domains: how the national NIC was established, any interesting >points about policies on SLDs, etc. The following questionnaire is my >attempt to formalize the question format from the Kuala Lumpur BOF. >I have been meaning to send these questions to the AP region NICs for >the past couple of months, but so far haven't managed to find time >(or, in fact, all the addresses of appropriate people to send the >questions to...) > >(1.) I would be grateful for your comments about the questions (David >and Mathias, you too please!), especially corrections, additions, >clarification of wording, etc. > >(2.) Then, if you think appropriate, I will try to send the questions >sometime next week to all the AP region NICs asking them >(a) to answer the questions and reply as soon as possible. >(b) if one of their staff will be at APRICOT then they should be >prepared to answer the questions at the xTLD BOF. > >NOTE - where can I find the address of a contact person at each NIC? >There used to be a list of the region's NICs on the APNIC web site, but >it disappeared in the recent web page reorganization, and the master >list at the IANA ( etc.) will be a >pain to use. > >After the meeting, I will follow-up with any missing NICs and then put >all the responses on the web (at GLOCOM and APNIC.) The information >will be publicly available. I hope the NICs will then keep us up to >date with any changes to their policies and practices. We might use >the same format at future BOFs. Good idea! It should be continued. >One concern: I am not sure there will be enough time to have people >from each country speak at the BOF, the meeting seems very short, >8:00pm to 9:30pm. I think the KL BOF lasted about 3 hours and there >will be more to talk about this time (with the green paper, CORE, >etc.). Yes, I am afraid of that. May I try to have the other BoF on Thursday/Friday? I saw following questionnairs and I think I can answer. You know, I am one of the director of JPNIC. Toru Takahashi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >AP Region National NIC/domain registry questionnaire. > >1. About the National NIC. > >How is the NIC established? (for example: non-profit, >for-profit, academic, governmental, etc.) > >Please provide a general description of the organization, and scope of >its activities. > > >2. About the domain. > >a. List the domain name tree (include all second level domains and any >unique third and other level domains.) > >b. For each second level domain (and any other unique domains), where >appropriate, please provide the following information: > > i. The organization that administers that domain (if different >from the national TLD registry.) > > ii. Any eligibility rules that apply to each domain (e.g. >applicants must have local presence, belong to an appropriate industry >sector, etc.) > > iii. Total number of domains registered in each SLD. > > iv. Registration mechanism: how domains are registered, cost, >expected time for completion of procedure, etc. > > v. Any other restrictions or rules that apply to domains registered >under > (for example: limitations on number of domains per applicant; >number of characters in any level domain; any restricted words such as >generic terms, well known names, religious or words with cultural >significance, etc.) > >c. Describe the procedure for creating new second level domains > > >3. Name disputes > >a. is there a trademark or other name dispute procedure? > >b. If yes, please provide an English text of name dispute procedure. >If no English text is available, please provide a short summary of main >points of the procedure in English and give the URL of local language >text. > > >4. All additional comments >(future plans for the NIC, any know relevant Government policies, etc.) > > >END > > > -------------------------------------------------------- TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp.$BEl5~%$%s%?!]%M%C%H-j2qD9(J Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ)$BF|K\%$%s%?!<%M%C%H6(2q2qD9(J Phone:+81-3-3341-6302 Fax:+81-3-3341-2881 Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-ap-ntld Wed Feb 11 17:46:53 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id RAA18396 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:46:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (mycity.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.163]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id RAA18382 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:46:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.108]) by mailgate.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.6/3.6Wbeta4-06/30/97) with ESMTP id RAA20112 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:49:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP (office-max06.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP [202.239.60.182]) by adhoc.shinjuku.TokyoNet.AD.JP (8.8.5/3.4W405/16/97) with SMTP id RAA08503 for ; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:49:42 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <9802110849.AA01713@toru-bib.TokyoNet.AD.JP> From: Toru Takahashi Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 17:49:35 +0900 To: ap-tld@apnic.net Subject: ccTLD(or nTLD) discussion in Manila and beyond MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AL-Mail 1.32 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Kilnam Chon forward$B!'(J There will be discussion on ccTLD in Manila; APNG, BoF-TLD,(and possibly at APNIC) as well as APRICOT. Most discussion would be focused on governance of the internet such as Magaziner's green papers, and the discussion on ccTLD would not be carried out with appropriate attention(since this is a "minor" issue relatively speaking at this moment). nethertheless, this is one of the issues we, AP community has to handle. see the attached diagram on this matter. i could not attend BoF-TLD and other after Wednesday Morning, 18th, i would like for you to carry my message as appropriate. it is important to form CENTR-like organization in Asia-Pacific, too.(we have been taking free-ride in this area too long!). my proposal/recommendation is form joint WG on ccTLD among the relevant parties in Asia-Pacific; APNIC, APNG,...(possibly expanding BoF-TLD), and have the next meeting in summer 1998(possibly in Geneva during INET) with optional "joint" meeting with other continents such as CENTR. if the joint WG cannot be formed, then keep BoF-TLD for time being. hope to discuss on this matter in Manila if we could find time. chon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1998.2.5 Internet DNS and IP Address Registration ---------------------------------------- +- APNIC | +-----+- ARIN (IP Address Allocation) | | | +- RIPE IANA --+ | | +---?--- IANA/POC/CORE/? (gTLD registration) | | +-- (Asia-Pacific) | | +-----+-- (America) (ccTLD registration) | +-- CENTR(Europe) -------------------------------------------------------- TAKAHASHI Toru toru@TokyoNet.AD.JP http://www.TokyoNet.AD.JP/people/toru/toru.html Chairman, Tokyo Internet Corp.$BEl5~%$%s%?!]%M%C%H-j2qD9(J Chairman, Internet Association of Japan(IAJ)$BF|K\%$%s%?!<%M%C%H6(2q2qD9(J Phone:+81-3-3341-6302 Fax:+81-3-3341-2881 Address:8th Floor, Sekaido bldg., 3-1-1 Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160 Japan ------------------------------------------------------ From owner-ap-ntld Thu Feb 12 01:49:39 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id BAA02373 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 01:49:39 +0900 (JST) Received: from syr.edu (syr.edu [128.230.1.49]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id BAA02356; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 01:49:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from IST.SYR.EDU (ist.syr.edu [128.230.33.105]) by syr.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17538; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from IST/SpoolDir by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21); 11 Feb 98 11:51:00 EDT Received: from SpoolDir by IST (Mercury 1.21); 11 Feb 98 11:50:13 EDT Received: from syr.edu by IST.SYR.EDU (Mercury 1.21) with ESMTP; 11 Feb 98 11:50:06 EDT Message-ID: <34E1D6BD.81118442@syr.edu> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:50:05 -0500 From: Milton Mueller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrik Faltstrom CC: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk You made some reasonable points, but please note the following: Patrik Faltstrom wrote: > [gTLD-MoU] was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, > not ITU and WIPO. The IAHC committee was a political coalition of ISOC, IANA,ITU, and WIPO. Please don't be disingenuous about this. > So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be > created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and more > important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the > registries are to exist. This discussion is taking place. That is what the Notice of Inquiryand the Green Paper are about. It is more than obvious that the gTLD did NOT establish a consensus about this. Otherwise the gTLD-MoU would have been implemented with no objection. > The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after discussing > this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries, > to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries > together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the UK > which have a system that works! Bureaucratic agencies always seem to believe that limiting marketplacesto one or two easily regulated players is the answer to any problems and conflicts. Certainly this makes life easier for the established, vested interests, such as the trademark holders. And it m,akes life easier for the regulators. But it is not the path toward an open, thriving, diverse and innovative market. The Internet reached its current glorious state of development precisely because it was structured to allow private organizations and players the freedom to jump on it and minimized administrative overhead. We need to keep thinking along those lines. > gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which the > trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so > difficult to handle. The trademark community is just wrong. Domain names are not trademarksand infringement that takes place on the Web can be rememdied without giving trademark holders prior review of every domain name handed out in the world. The trademark/copyright interests have a long history of making outrageous and unreasonable claims. They wanted to ban videotape recorders in the United States. They were wrong about that, and they are wrong about domain names. Privately, many trademark lawyers agree with me. But they recognize that it is in the economic self-interest of large multinational trademark holders to extend their property rights as far as possible. If we let "big trademark" run rampant over the Internet, they will do it. Therefore, we must stand up to them. Learn how to say "NO!" > There are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you will > encounter not until you start writing down the details. Bring on the dragons! Milton Mueller From owner-ap-ntld Thu Feb 12 02:23:25 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id CAA02663 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 02:23:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from nix.swip.net (nix.swip.net [192.71.220.2]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA02643; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 02:23:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from swip.net (workstation1.swip.net [130.244.254.1]) by nix.swip.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA10615; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:25:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <34E1DEA5.D2014DB2@swip.net> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:23:49 +0100 From: "Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?=" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Milton Mueller CC: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list References: <34E1D6BD.81118442@syr.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Milton Mueller wrote: > Patrik Faltstrom wrote: > > > [gTLD-MoU] was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, > > not ITU and WIPO. > > The IAHC committee was a political coalition of ISOC, IANA,ITU, and WIPO. > Please don't be disingenuous about this. Well, one can call it a political coalition, and whatever other word one wants. The history was that there was a discussion forever on the IETF list, before and after Jon Postel posted his Internet Drafts about how this "should be done". Because of the struggle in the IETF, the IAHC group was created like a blue-ribbon panel to be the party which did discuss things with for example the trademark people and others that were screaming. > > So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be > > created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and more > > important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the > > registries are to exist. > > This discussion is taking place. That is what the Notice of Inquiryand the > Green Paper are about. It is more than obvious that the gTLD > did NOT establish a consensus about this. Otherwise the gTLD-MoU > would have been implemented with no objection. The problem is that you will _never_ find consensus. The trademark people do have a say in many large coorporations, which are also players on the Internet. I was surprised myself what companies did have a voice of the trademark people when I joined the POC (aug -97). I.e. the companies which I thought were supporting the IETF approach of consensus clearly had a different kind of voice when talking about intellectual property. Strong forces, really strong, did not want any gTLDs at all. That's one side of the coin. They could maybe accept ONE. Only one and no more. This because of the need for doing trademark searches and other things. Remember that the first proposal was to start with 35 gTLDs and then increase... POC ended up with a compromise (consensus was impossible) with 7 gTLDs, IF also a system was included where one could do trademark searches, dispute resolution fast (on-line) and get results of dispute resolution (which includes exclusion) immediate. At the same time, people looked at the problem with disputes between registrars, and the registrars and the registry. We looked closely at the system in the UK, where you have one registry, and that is created by a membership status (one can say maybe...I am translating in my head from english, to swedish back to swedish again... :-), i.e. the registrars together form the registry. So, minimizing the number of registries and having the registrars together form the registry was a good idea which solved a number of problems. What I am trying to say, is that consensus can be clear, rough or very rough (when it is a compromize). One can discuss where the current proposal from POC is on this scale, but I doubt that you will get something better by doing something else. Whatever process you restart now, will take a long long time, and we do not have that time. > > The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after discussing > > this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries, > > to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries > > together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the UK > > which have a system that works! > > Bureaucratic agencies always seem to believe that limiting marketplacesto one > or two easily regulated players is the answer to any problems > and conflicts. Certainly this makes life easier for the established, vested > interests, such as the trademark holders. And it m,akes life easier > for the regulators. But it is not the path toward an open, thriving, diverse > and innovative market. The DNS can not be diverse. You have one root and only one root. It is also clear when talking to goverments and people all around the world that things are not today the same as they were before. You should know how much some governments want to regulate regarding the Internet! > The Internet reached its current glorious state of development precisely > because it was structured to allow private organizations and players the > freedom to jump on it and minimized administrative overhead. We need > to keep thinking along those lines. I am on your side of the table here, but you should know that what I have seen the last couple of months that "we" do not any longer define the people running and ruling how the net is to be built. > > gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which the > > trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so > > difficult to handle. > > The trademark community is just wrong. Domain names are not trademarksand > infringement that takes place on the Web can be rememdied without > giving trademark holders prior review of every domain name handed out > in the world. The trademark/copyright interests have a long history of > making outrageous and unreasonable claims. They wanted to ban videotape > recorders in the United States. They were wrong about that, and they > are wrong about domain names. Privately, many trademark lawyers > agree with me. But they recognize that it is in the economic self-interest > of large multinational trademark holders to extend their property rights > as far as possible. If we let "big trademark" run rampant over the > Internet, they will do it. Therefore, we must stand up to them. > Learn how to say "NO!" Well, that is exactly what POC has been doing the last couple of months, if not a year. We have been talking to the trademark people, and we have a picture which they even sanction. The registrars can register whatever they want (we start with 7 gTLDs, and have further _NO_ policy for how the names are allocated), and also charge whatever they want. The registry itself is not supposed to be a fun buissness, as a registry creates a monopoly for one gTLD. I.e. I try to tell you that I am on the IETF side of the table, and clearly not a lawyer, but I have seen how important it is to -- if possible -- have these people you call people we should stand up to on our side aswell. We engineers _can_ compromise. Competition between registries is just stupid. The registrars will be in the hands of the registrars which have monopoly on certain domains, and the customers will not know what they should know. Having 100% competition between the registrars is a good thing, and that should be encouraged. I think one see so much complaints against the POC proposal because people don't understand. They think that CORE is a new NSI which on top of that is in Geneva in Swizerland. It is not! POC has very carefully eliminated the monopoly cituation on one gTLD by creating basically the same scheme as in England, i.e. having the registrars together forming the registry. > > There are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you will > > encounter not until you start writing down the details. > > Bring on the dragons! > Milton Mueller Sure, they are already popping up... Patrik From owner-ap-ntld Thu Feb 12 05:38:02 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id FAA04093 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:38:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from info.isoc.org (info.isoc.org [198.6.250.9]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id FAA04068; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:37:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from linus.isoc.org (mailhub.isoc.org [192.168.1.10]) by info.isoc.org (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id PAA12280; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from newlatitude.isoc.org (dhcp15.isoc.org [192.168.1.115]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id PAA16470; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:31:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980211153435.00b617c0@pop.isoc.org> X-Sender: heath@pop.isoc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:34:35 -0500 To: Milton Mueller From: Don Heath Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Cc: Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC , Jon Postel , , Chapters , , tomg , Greg Hurst , John Gilmore , Vint Cerf , "David W. Maher" , Bob Shaw , Geoff Huston , Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com> In-Reply-To: <34E1D6BD.81118442@syr.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 11:50 AM 2/11/98 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >You made some reasonable points, but please note the following: > >Patrik Faltstrom wrote: > >> [gTLD-MoU] was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, >> not ITU and WIPO. > >The IAHC committee was a political coalition of ISOC, IANA,ITU, and WIPO. >Please don't be disingenuous about this. I am sorry to weigh in on this - I'm not apologizing, I'm just sorry to get involved in this by and large unfruitful thread. However, I was there. I put the IAHC together and I know how it was done and with what motivation. This is said without ego, it's just the way it was. Postel wrote a proposal. In it, he described an ad hoc committee to select the registrars, define the TLDs, assign them, set up procedures for doing this process, and disband. He gave it to ISOC to implement. In June 1996, the ISOC BoT voted to accept the proposal, with a proviso that it be fleshed out with a business plan. At that point, I was involved in email discussions on the topic, and in forums around the world as well. It was clear to me that the proposal could never work as defined. There was significant international resistance to what looked like a very US-centric plan, controlled by US-thinking. So, I sought to pull together a group of people, geographically dispersed, with knowledge on the subject, who could also offer some clout (thus, the ITU - with their telco and worldwide reach, WIPO - for similar reasons, but with the IP and legal reach, INTA - again, worldwide reach representing many many business, corporations, and the trademark issues), plus the US government in the form of the Federal Networking Council. I then took the opportunity to use the idea from the Postel plan to get members appointed from the international "Internet Community" from the IAB, IANA, and of course, ISOC. As an aside, the IAB and IANA appointees came into the group thinking they were doing the Postel plan. It was a little awkward, but quickly resolved. I originally wanted to include members from CIX, NSI, APNIC, and RIPE. Ultimately I gave in to the argument that the group would get too big; some interested groups would have to be excluded from direct IAHC "membership"; a smaller group could react better and more efficiently; it could look like conflict of interest if NSI et al were in it; etc. The idea was, is, and always has been, to develop a wide spread view of what should be done - but not to implement the Postel plan, unless, if by coincidence, that happened to be the result of the process. It was not. It should be noted that at the very beginning, Jon Postel agreed with what I wanted to do. Jon has always refrained from any attempt to dictate what should be done; rather, deferring to the will of the Internet stakeholders. As a result, IANA fully got behind the new approach to be worked by the IAHC. I have copied Jon and a few others on this note. No one else interfered with what I put together. I personally went to Pekka Tarjanne (ITU), Arpad Bogsch (WIPO), and INTA. INTA, because David Maher was there at the time, and I wanted him on the IAHC. It turned out that he resigned his spot at INTA, and INTA appointed another. As a result, David became an ISOC appointee. There just wasn't any political stuff going on; there were no meetings thinking about composition (other that when I wanted to expand the IAHC within the 1st week of it's inception - and those discussions were a few emails, and phone conversations as I report above). In fact, both Tarjanne and Bogsch, independently, wrote me notes saying they would provide an individual, but in no way were ITU, or WIPO endorsing what we were doing and that they would not and could not officially participate. Later, of course, ITU agreed to handle some minor administrative duties, and we brought WIPO in, also in an administrative role only, regarding the dispute policy processes. All the speculation about conspiracy, sinister motives, attempting to take control, etc., are just plain hogwash. The IAHC was formed only to work in the way the Internet was developed and is flourishing. That is by grass roots, bottom up consensus building and self- determination. That's what we tried to do. The incredible effort to derail, stall, mischaracterize the motivation and the work of the IAHC, to discredit it, etc., has been personally frustrating and disappointing; but, it did a good job. No one nor any group has remotely come up with anything that comes close to what the IAHC/POC/CORE/PAB has done. The changes that have been made and continue to be made in this thing are proof that it is open to all and that anyone can influence its outcome, providing there is wide enough acceptance. The group does not sit in private and decide what to do; it gets its direction from you. Still, as the saying goes, "you can't please everybody." We had no massive PR machine and lobbying effort to drum up support; we simply did it the way it has been done - the way that has produced one of the most profound entities ever - the Internet. The forces who had a self interest to protect, on the other hand, were and are, very effective in conjuring up misinformation and obfuscating the real issues. There has been an incredible amount of work, thought, and brilliant synthesis to get where we are. This has involved thousands of people from all over the world - the single most publicly scrutinized effort ever introduced into the Internet. It should not be discarded lightly. > >> So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be >> created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and more >> important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the >> registries are to exist. > >This discussion is taking place. That is what the Notice of Inquiryand the >Green Paper are about. It is more than obvious that the gTLD >did NOT establish a consensus about this. Otherwise the gTLD-MoU >would have been implemented with no objection. > >> The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after discussing >> this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries, >> to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries >> together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the UK >> which have a system that works! > >Bureaucratic agencies always seem to believe that limiting marketplacesto one >or two easily regulated players is the answer to any problems >and conflicts. Certainly this makes life easier for the established, vested >interests, such as the trademark holders. And it m,akes life easier >for the regulators. But it is not the path toward an open, thriving, diverse >and innovative market. >The Internet reached its current glorious state of development precisely >because it was structured to allow private organizations and players the >freedom to jump on it and minimized administrative overhead. We need >to keep thinking along those lines. > >> gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which the >> trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so >> difficult to handle. > >The trademark community is just wrong. Domain names are not trademarksand >infringement that takes place on the Web can be rememdied without >giving trademark holders prior review of every domain name handed out >in the world. The trademark/copyright interests have a long history of >making outrageous and unreasonable claims. They wanted to ban videotape >recorders in the United States. They were wrong about that, and they >are wrong about domain names. Privately, many trademark lawyers >agree with me. But they recognize that it is in the economic self-interest >of large multinational trademark holders to extend their property rights >as far as possible. If we let "big trademark" run rampant over the >Internet, they will do it. Therefore, we must stand up to them. >Learn how to say "NO!" > >> There are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you will >> encounter not until you start writing down the details. > >Bring on the dragons! >Milton Mueller > > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 From owner-ap-ntld Thu Feb 12 10:32:13 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id KAA06410 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:32:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu (rupertsberg.cs.Colorado.EDU [128.138.236.10]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA06391; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 10:32:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA14717; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:32:39 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199802120132.SAA14717@rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu> To: Don Heath cc: Milton Mueller , Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC , Jon Postel , CORE@core.gtld-mou.org, Chapters , alan@connected.org, tomg , Greg Hurst , John Gilmore , Vint Cerf , "David W. Maher" , Bob Shaw , Geoff Huston , Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>, evi@rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:34:35 MST." <3.0.5.32.19980211153435.00b617c0@pop.isoc.org> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:32:25 -0700 From: Evi Nemeth Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk nice message. has any serious thought been given to just eliminating all gtlds and making all registrations occur under the country codes. give the us domain to the dept of commerce to administer, give folks a year or two to change their letterhead, advertising, etc. to say foo.com.us or foo.co.uk or ... instead of foo.com. probably need to give the dept of commerce in the us some help in the transition and some guidelines for using hierarchy. -evi ps - i too hate to jump into this fracas, my backed up mailbox cant handle it :-) From owner-ap-ntld Thu Feb 12 23:11:10 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id XAA02217 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:11:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from info.isoc.org (info.isoc.org [198.6.250.9]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA02190; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:10:53 +0900 (JST) Received: from linus.isoc.org (mailhub.isoc.org [192.168.1.10]) by info.isoc.org (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA28493; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:11:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from newlatitude.isoc.org (dhcp15.isoc.org [192.168.1.115]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id JAA18627; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:05:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980212090803.008bd9d0@pop.isoc.org> X-Sender: heath@pop.isoc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:08:03 -0500 To: Evi Nemeth From: Don Heath Subject: Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Cc: Milton Mueller , Toru Takahashi , apia-member@apia.org, faoc@teckla.apnic.net, ap-tld@apnic.net, dom-wg@nic.ad.jp, chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr, jun@wide.ad.jp, registrar@overseas.co.tw, gtld@melbourneit.co.au, mao@cnnic.net.cn, royfang@pcdc.net, ckp@nca.or.kr, admin@namehost.com, info@globalnames.net, hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn, info@capital.net.au, arakawa@email.co.jp, terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp, POC , Jon Postel , CORE@core.gtld-mou.org, Chapters , alan@connected.org, tomg , Greg Hurst , John Gilmore , Vint Cerf , "David W. Maher" , Bob Shaw , Geoff Huston , Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>, evi@rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu In-Reply-To: <199802120132.SAA14717@rupertsberg.cs.colorado.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk At 06:32 PM 2/11/98 -0700, Evi Nemeth wrote: >nice message. > >has any serious thought been given to just eliminating all gtlds >and making all registrations occur under the country codes. give >the us domain to the dept of commerce to administer, give folks a >year or two to change their letterhead, advertising, etc. to say >foo.com.us or foo.co.uk or ... instead of foo.com. probably need >to give the dept of commerce in the us some help in the transition >and some guidelines for using hierarchy. sigh Yes, there was serious consideration. Frankly, it is the answer; but, it just can't be so. The "cat is out of the bag" as they say. There really was considerable thought about how to do this. It's why I started with a "sigh" and will end with a sigh See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 From owner-ap-ntld Fri Feb 13 09:42:32 1998 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) id JAA16225 for ap-ntld-outgoing; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:42:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from farley.cisco.com (farley.cisco.com [204.179.2.54]) by teckla.apnic.net (8.8.7/8.7.1) with ESMTP id JAA16201; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:42:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from kiwi.cisco.com (kiwi [199.35.98.98]) by farley.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA19815; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:38:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bgreene-pc.cisco.com ([171.68.85.150]) by kiwi.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/CISCO.WS.1.2) with SMTP id QAA18458; Thu, 12 Feb 1998 16:38:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:32:10 +0800 Message-ID: <01BD3859.E0B8E3A0.bgreene@cisco.com> From: Barry Raveendran Greene Reply-To: "bgreene@cisco.com" To: "'Don Heath'" , Milton Mueller Cc: Toru Takahashi , "apia-member@apia.org" , "faoc@teckla.apnic.net" , "ap-tld@apnic.net" , "dom-wg@nic.ad.jp" , "chon@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr" Cc: "jun@wide.ad.jp" , "registrar@overseas.co.tw" , "gtld@melbourneit.co.au" , "mao@cnnic.net.cn" , "royfang@pcdc.net" , "ckp@nca.or.kr" Cc: "admin@namehost.com" , "info@globalnames.net" , "hongde@gbnic.gb.com.cn" , "info@capital.net.au" , "arakawa@email.co.jp" , "terasima@tokyonet.ad.jp" Cc: POC , Jon Postel , "CORE@core.gtld-mou.org" , Chapters , "alan@connected.org" , tomg Cc: Greg Hurst , John Gilmore , Vint Cerf , "David W. Maher" , Bob Shaw , Geoff Huston Cc: Albert Tramposch <0002082489@mcimail.com>, "'APPLe'" Subject: RE: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:03:22 +0800 Organization: Cisco Systems - Corporate Consulting Group X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ap-ntld@apnic.net Precedence: bulk Hi Don, That seemed really productive. Thanks for the brain dump. It very useful. Barry On Thursday, February 12, 1998 4:35 AM, Don Heath [SMTP:heath@isoc.org] wrote: > At 11:50 AM 2/11/98 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > >You made some reasonable points, but please note the following: > > > >Patrik Faltstrom wrote: > > > >> [gTLD-MoU] was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, > >> > >> not ITU and WIPO. > > > >The IAHC committee was a political coalition of ISOC, IANA,ITU, and WIPO. > >Please don't be disingenuous about this. > > I am sorry to weigh in on this - I'm not apologizing, I'm just sorry > to get involved in this by and large unfruitful thread. However, I > was there. I put the IAHC together and I know how it was done and > with what motivation. This is said without ego, it's just the way > it was. > > Postel wrote a proposal. In it, he described an ad hoc committee to > select the registrars, define the TLDs, assign them, set up procedures > for doing this process, and disband. > > He gave it to ISOC to implement. In June 1996, the ISOC BoT voted to > accept the proposal, with a proviso that it be fleshed out with a > business plan. > > At that point, I was involved in email discussions on the topic, and > in forums around the world as well. It was clear to me that the > proposal could never work as defined. There was significant > international resistance to what looked like a very US-centric plan, > controlled by US-thinking. > > So, I sought to pull together a group of people, geographically dispersed, > with knowledge on the subject, who could also offer some clout (thus, > the ITU - with their telco and worldwide reach, WIPO - for similar > reasons, but with the IP and legal reach, INTA - again, worldwide > reach representing many many business, corporations, and the trademark > issues), plus the US government in the form of the Federal Networking > Council. I then took the opportunity to use the idea from the Postel > plan to get members appointed from the international "Internet > Community" from the IAB, IANA, and of course, ISOC. As an aside, the > IAB and IANA appointees came into the group thinking they were doing > the Postel plan. It was a little awkward, but quickly resolved. I > originally wanted to include members from CIX, NSI, APNIC, and RIPE. > Ultimately I gave in to the argument that the group would get too big; > some interested groups would have to be excluded from direct IAHC > "membership"; a smaller group could react better and more efficiently; > it could look like conflict of interest if NSI et al were in it; etc. > > The idea was, is, and always has been, to develop a wide spread view > of what should be done - but not to implement the Postel plan, unless, > if by coincidence, that happened to be the result of the process. It > was not. It should be noted that at the very beginning, Jon Postel > agreed with what I wanted to do. Jon has always refrained from any > attempt to dictate what should be done; rather, deferring to the > will of the Internet stakeholders. As a result, IANA fully got > behind the new approach to be worked by the IAHC. I have copied > Jon and a few others on this note. > > No one else interfered with what I put together. I personally went > to Pekka Tarjanne (ITU), Arpad Bogsch (WIPO), and INTA. INTA, because > David Maher was there at the time, and I wanted him on the IAHC. It > turned out that he resigned his spot at INTA, and INTA appointed another. > As a result, David became an ISOC appointee. > > There just wasn't any political stuff going on; there were no meetings > thinking about composition (other that when I wanted to expand the > IAHC within the 1st week of it's inception - and those discussions > were a few emails, and phone conversations as I report above). In > fact, both Tarjanne and Bogsch, independently, wrote me notes saying > they would provide an individual, but in no way were ITU, or WIPO > endorsing what we were doing and that they would not and could not > officially participate. Later, of course, ITU agreed to handle > some minor administrative duties, and we brought WIPO in, also in > an administrative role only, regarding the dispute policy processes. > > All the speculation about conspiracy, sinister motives, attempting > to take control, etc., are just plain hogwash. The IAHC was formed > only to work in the way the Internet was developed and is flourishing. > That is by grass roots, bottom up consensus building and self- > determination. That's what we tried to do. > > The incredible effort to derail, stall, mischaracterize the motivation > and the work of the IAHC, to discredit it, etc., has been personally > frustrating and disappointing; but, it did a good job. No one nor > any group has remotely come up with anything that comes close to what > the IAHC/POC/CORE/PAB has done. > > The changes that have been made and continue to be made in this thing > are proof that it is open to all and that anyone can influence its > outcome, providing there is wide enough acceptance. The group does > not sit in private and decide what to do; it gets its direction from > you. Still, as the saying goes, "you can't please everybody." > > We had no massive PR machine and lobbying effort to drum up support; > we simply did it the way it has been done - the way that has produced > one of the most profound entities ever - the Internet. The forces who > had a self interest to protect, on the other hand, were and are, very > effective in conjuring up misinformation and obfuscating the real > issues. There has been an incredible amount of work, thought, and > brilliant synthesis to get where we are. This has involved thousands > of people from all over the world - the single most publicly scrutinized > effort ever introduced into the Internet. It should not be discarded > lightly. > > > > >> So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be > >> created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and > >> more > >> important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the > >> registries are to exist. > > > >This discussion is taking place. That is what the Notice of Inquiryand the > >Green Paper are about. It is more than obvious that the gTLD > >did NOT establish a consensus about this. Otherwise the gTLD-MoU > >would have been implemented with no objection. > > > >> The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after > >> discussing > >> this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries, > >> > >> to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries > >> together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the > >> UK > >> which have a system that works! > > > >Bureaucratic agencies always seem to believe that limiting marketplacesto > >one > >or two easily regulated players is the answer to any problems > >and conflicts. Certainly this makes life easier for the established, > >vested > >interests, such as the trademark holders. And it m,akes life easier > >for the regulators. But it is not the path toward an open, thriving, > >diverse > >and innovative market. > >The Internet reached its current glorious state of development precisely > >because it was structured to allow private organizations and players the > >freedom to jump on it and minimized administrative overhead. We need > >to keep thinking along those lines. > > > >> gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which > >> the > >> trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so > >> difficult to handle. > > > >The trademark community is just wrong. Domain names are not trademarksand > >infringement that takes place on the Web can be rememdied without > >giving trademark holders prior review of every domain name handed out > >in the world. The trademark/copyright interests have a long history of > >making outrageous and unreasonable claims. They wanted to ban videotape > >recorders in the United States. They were wrong about that, and they > >are wrong about domain names. Privately, many trademark lawyers > >agree with me. But they recognize that it is in the economic self-interest > >of large multinational trademark holders to extend their property rights > >as far as possible. If we let "big trademark" run rampant over the > >Internet, they will do it. Therefore, we must stand up to them. > >Learn how to say "NO!" > > > >> There are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you > >> will > >> encounter not until you start writing down the details. > > > >Bring on the dragons! > >Milton Mueller > > > > > > > > > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 >