Hi Bill,
I suspect that the following argument applies
to RFC 1591 . . .
At 1/25/99, 04:35 PM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
>Hello Esther -- Per our very brief conversations at the DNSO.ORG,
>INTA, ICC meeting in Washington on 22 Jan, I strongly urge you to take
>Simon's advice to NOT DISREGARD THE HISTORY OF THE DNS MESS.
>
>Indeed, there has been a long series of failed expectations, often
>involving what the FCC folks call a "taking away" where some action
>takes away from entitled parties something that they are in fact
>entitled to for for some kind of historic reason. Ignoring history
>sets you and ICANN up for actions that result from any action to "take
>away" something that you have no right (or power) to take away.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
At 1/29/99, 12:43 AM, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
>An Open Letter To the ICANN and DNSO Community:
>
>There suddenly appears to be a lot of confusion afoot in the DNSO public
>(and private) discussion lists about ccTLDs. In particular, many
>self-appointed TLD "experts" have decided to declare which ccTLD
>organizations might be thought to represent the ccTLD "consensus," as if
>such a thing could exist, and how that spurious "consensus" should
>figure in developing the DNSO application.
>
>Many of these self-appointed experts appear to have little or (mostly)
>no experience or involvement in the ccTLD community, and are, basically,
>propagating myths and fantasies.
>
>That is one reason many ccTLD managers have been concerned about ICANN's
>(and the DNSO's) role in setting future policy directions for ccTLDs. We
>have been an autonomous, independent group for nearly 15 years and are
>pretty much used to making our own policy decisions and solving our own
>technical problems, based on the current RFCs. The continuing stability
>of the DNS over those years is testament to the ongoing success of that
>approach.
>
>Some of these "experts" have decided that CENTR, a group of 36 Western
>and Eastern European ccTLD administrators, represent a "consensus" view
>for all other ccTLDs. This is just not so. CENTR represents only one
>(small) point of view in the wide expanse of 240 ccTLD administrators
>worldwide.
>
>These same "experts" have also decided that IATLD (International
>Association of Top Level Domains) can not be thought to represent any
>kind of ccTLD consensus view since it only represents the views of
>"small" ccTLDs. This is also false.
>
>In fact, 73 ccTLDs have come out in support of the IATLD position that
>ICANN (and by extension DNSO) should continue to recognize RFC 1591 and
>other RFCs that relate to DNS management on the Internet. That is more
>than twice the number of ccTLDs involved in CENTR.
>
>It is true that most of these 73 ccTLDs represent mostly non-white,
>non-European or less-developed nations. But would you define China as
>"small"? Mexico? Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Peru, Egypt, or Namibia? I
>don't think so.
>
>The IATLD is committed to representing the consensus opinions of these
>73 ccTLDs to assure that the basic rules and procedures set in place by
>RFC 1591 for ccTLD administration are maintained by ICANN, with any
>future changes in the RFCs developed using due process - not
>arbitrarily.
>
>If the participants in the current DNSO application refuse to recognize
>this broad support for RFC 1591, as appears to be happening right now,
>then we will likely opt out of the DNSO process and continue the current
>autonomous system of ccTLD self-management that IANA put in place with
>RFC 1591.
>
>So please, do not purport that "consensus" ccTLD support exists for the
>current DNSO application(s) until you have first made certain to include
>the clearly-stated perspectives of these 73:
>
>.AI - Anguilla
>.AM - Armenia (RIPE/CENTR Member)
>.BI - Republic of Burundi
>.BO - Bolivia
>.BR - Brazil
>.CC - Cocos & Keeling Islands
>.CD - Democratic Republic of the Congo
>.CG - Republic of the Congo
>.CL - Chile
>.CN - China
>.CR - Costa Rica
>.CV - Cape Verde Islands
>.CO - Columbia
>.DO - Dominican Republic
>.DZ - Algeria
>.EG - Egypt
>.ER - Eritrea
>.FK - Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
>.GD - Grenada
>.GF - French Guiana
>.GG - Guernsey
>.GH - Ghana
>.GM - The Gambia, West Africa
>.GP - Guadeloupe
>.GS - South Georgia and Sandwich Islands
>.GT - Guatemala
>.HN - Honduras
>.ID - Indonesia
>.JE - Jersey
>.KW - Kuwait
>.KY - Cayman Islands
>.KZ - Kazakhstan
>.LA, Lao People's Democratic Republic
>.LC - Saint Lucia
>.LR - Liberia
>.LS - Lesotho
>.LY - Libya
>.MG - Madagascar
>.ML - Republic of Mali
>.MP - Northern Mariana Islands
>.MS - Montserrat
>.MT - Malta
>.MU - Mauritius
>.MW - Malawi
>.MX - Mexico
>.NA - Namibia
>.NU - Niue
>.NZ - New Zealand
>.PA - Panama
>.PE - Peru
>.PG - Papua New Guinea
>.PH - Philippines
>.PN - Pitcairn
>.QA - Qatar
>.RW - Republic of Rwanda
>.SB - Solomon Islands
>.SC - Seychelles
>.SG - Singapore
>.SV - El Salvador
>.TC - Turks and Caicos Islands
>.TF - French Southern Territories
>.TJ - Tajikistan
>.TO - Tonga
>.TT - Trinidad and Tobago
>.TW - Taiwan
>.UA - Ukraine
>.UG - Uganda
>.UY - Uruguay
>.UZ - Uzbekistan
>.VE - Venezuela
>.VU - Vanuatu
>.VG - Virgin Islands (British)
>.ZW - Zimbabwe
>
>Respectfully submitted by
>
>J. William Semich
>President and Co-founder
>Internet Users Society - Niue
>.NU Domain (Niue)
>and
>Secretary/Treasurer
>International Association of Top Level Domains (IATLD)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
