Whatever the case, Gordon, there has been a lot of "dirty dancing"
going on between all the parties concerned. I don't take any of this
at face value, and I am still curious to see the full text of the letter
outlining the terms by which NSI was "willing" to open up the root.
I fear, as always, the devil is in the details. There are still many
pieces to the puzzle that need to be identified and fit together.
I maintain a very healty amount of skepticism, no matter what,
until all the facts come out.
Who is hiding what? I don't think that it's only the "." that's
invisible....
Above all, as the cliche' goes, talk is cheap, and actions speak
louder than words.
regards,
Paul Garrin
>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
>******************************************************************************
