Yes indeed paul.... pretty interesting. when the response came on june 25
1997 from I think Don Mitchel it instructed NSI not to put any new names in
the root. What this meant was that the US Government Interagency committee
on domain names put things on indefinite hold so that the politicos could
decide who would be allowed to to control the addition of domain names to
the root.
While out of one side of their mouths becky and ira said all the government
was interested in was competition, the goevrnment reached out and forbade
an NSI that was EAGER TO OPEN THE ROOT FOR COMPETITION from doing so.
Allowing the NSI to be excoriated for almost two more years as the greedy
evil bastards who really wanted to keep the whole thing for themselves.
After all who can forget the rabid attack leveled against NSI by EFF last
spring. Of course people who made such a big issue out of the **virtues**
of choosing an allegedly neutral ICANN board conveniently ignored the fact
that as an EFF board member, esther Dyson was a signatory to the EFF attack
on NSI.
DID BECKY BURR, and Ira Magaziner decide that the holding action of keeping
the root closed despite NSI's desire to open it was necessary to give
Cochetti, and patrick and the GIP enought time to get together with Chris
Wilkinson and Martin bangeman to begin to put together and mount a the
counter attack in the form of ICANN as their desired international
regulatory body to govern and control the internet?
ICANN we were conned into believing was put in place to protect us against
against the predatory lust of NSI. this memo calls that explanation into
question. no wonder the feds had to sit on the memo....
>The following was just recently made
>public. For what it's worth, it's an interesting read:
>
>(the entire text of the letter was previously restricted confidential
> this excerpt appeared th the Court papers of 3-17-1999)
>
>At some point, the entire text of NSI's proposal may be available
>online, as soon as it is released publicly in its entirety.
>
>The full text of the Court's decision will be posted soon.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Excerpt from the opinion and order of Judge Robert Patterson,
>pgMedia/Name.Space v. NSI/NSF:
>
>
> On June 10, 1997, NSI's Internet Business Manager, David Graves wrote
>to Don Mitchell, Cognizant Program Official for the NSF's Network and
>Communication Division, expressing concern over PGM's suit and other
>potential litigation over the TLD registration issue.
>
>
> Network Solutions finds itself in the difficult position of defending
> itself against anti-trust claims that its server is an "essential
> facility" for Internet commerce, while at the same time privately and
> publicly supporting the addition of more TLDs to enhance competition.
> Further, Network Solutions must defend itself without any certainty
> as to whether it has the authority to accept or reject demands, such
> as PGMedia's, for the inclusion of additional TLDs. There are no
> technological restrictions or impediments to the inclusion of
> additional TLDs to our root.zone file. Network Solutions has no
> interest in being the target of such actions, and, I am certain, the
> NSF does not want to become one either. In the absence of action, the
> number of lawsuits will likely increase as more demands for the
> inclusion of additional TLDs are received.
>
> Network Solutions has in the past reviewed and forwarded requests for
> new TLDs to the IANA. With few exceptions, the TLDs, however, were for
> new country code designations. Network Solutions consulted with the
> IANA before including those TLDs on our root.zone file. However, in the
> face of the IANA's unwillingness or inability to accept any
> responsibility, and the impending legal threats, it appears that the
> decision process will be limited at least initially to Network
> Solutions operating in a responsible manner with NSF concurrence. We
> envision that the administration of INternet top level domains will
> need to be conducted in this manner during the Cooperative Agreement,
> while the future governance issues of the Internet evolve and mature.
>
> Under the above circumstances, we believe that additional TLDs should
> be included on our root.zone file. We also believe that the addition
> of new TLDs will be beneficial to a more competitive environment and
> desirable for a further commercialization of Internet registration
> services at this time. Accordingly, it is our intention to announce
> publicly that on July 15, 1997 Network Solutions will begin accepting
> applications to include new TLDs on the root.zone file from PGMedia,
> Iperdome, and other interested parties.
>
> By this letter, we seek NSF's concurrence in this action, and
> respecfully request your response no later than June 25, 1997, to
> allow us sufficient time to finalize our plan and to report to the
> Federal Court in the PGMedia suit. Network Solutions believes that it
> is imperitive to proceed with the public announcement of this plan,
> and urges NSF's prompt consideration of an concurrence on the
> implementation process.
>
>[end of excerpt]
>
> NSF's response letter:
> http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI06251997.jpg
>
> index of other exhibits:
> http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/answers/letters/
>
>Transcript of Oral Arguments, July 20, 1998:
>http://name.space-beats-internic.net/law/july20transcript.html
***************************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com
******************************************************************************
