IAHC Plan rejectd by US Gov't
At 10:22 AM 5/29/97 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
[IAHC Plan] And failed, being rejected by: US GOV't NSI Major ISP's Author of the DNS itself
* The effort has not been rejected by the US government.
U.S. rejects Net name plan By Margie Wylie May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT "The U.S. government, however, took a neutral stance on the proposition until today. "We are explicitly saying that we are not supporting the ad hoc committee's plan in its current form," a member of the White House's interagency task force on domain names said today" <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10345,00.html> I hardly call this a hearty endorsement, Dave. Perhaps this is what Mockapetris meant when he said "both sides are guilty of half truths". This article is less than a month old, and you are spouting just the opposite as fact ? Shame. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum. Arrgh matey's. Respectfully submitted, one of the "pirates", who would lke to see and is willing to committ infrastructure to subsidize free SL domain names. Sue me. Yes, yes, I can hear it now: "But $100 is not unresonable for any business to get thei rown domain name" and ONCE AGAIN i point out, it's more than jus business that uses the net. -- "You can tell the Internet pioneers, because they're the ones with the bullet holes in their feet." - BKR
I've never understood the question of US Government support. They need to use .GOV and they should be taking charge of .US and they certainly have a clear claim to .MIL, and that's pretty much the end of it. I certainly do not wait on the likes of Brian Kahin to tell me what to put into BIND, and I can only guess that the IANA doesn't care what Brian Kahin thinks ought to be put into "." either. Having Kahin's group announce that they don't like the IAHC plan is about as relevant as having them announce a position on Hong Kong's government or the price of tea in China. Internet "BIG". US Government "little". I wonder, if the French government were to announce that they supported or didn't support the IAHC plan, whether anybody would even comment on it? There are, by the way, some mailing lists missing from the "CC" header in this thread. If we're going to spam NANOG, shouldn't we spam BASKET-WEAVERS too?
On Thu, 29 May 1997, Paul A Vixie wrote:
There are, by the way, some mailing lists missing from the "CC" header in this thread. If we're going to spam NANOG, shouldn't we spam BASKET-WEAVERS too?
That's a good point - could future posts on this and other DNS subjects please omit NANOG from your recipient lists? That will help cut the amount of non-relevant mail from the NANOG list, and interested NANOGites can then join edns-discuss or newdom. Thanks. --Susan Harris, Merit
Paul A Vixie wrote:
I've never understood the question of US Government support. They need to use .GOV and they should be taking charge of .US and they certainly have a clear claim to .MIL, and that's pretty much the end of it. I certainly do not wait on the likes of Brian Kahin to tell me what to put into BIND, and I can only guess that the IANA doesn't care what Brian Kahin thinks ought to be put into "." either.
Well, since IANA works for the US government as a subcontractor on the InterNIC contract, they should care. Or wait, does IANA even exist anymore??? Wasn't their contract already ended? It's rather interesting that IANA never stopped NSI from charging for domains(perhaps because they were a subcontractor to NSI) or that the original draft-postel promoted monopolies like the current NSI plan(perhaps because they were a subcontractor to NSI). Hmmmmm, maybe IANA has been working in the best interest of NSI for quite some time? Can you spell dupes?
Having Kahin's group announce that they don't like the IAHC plan is about as relevant as having them announce a position on Hong Kong's government or the price of tea in China.
But it is relevant(in both your examples also). If you don't understand why then perhaps you have not been paying attention. Why do you think Reed Hundt is leaving the FCC?
Internet "BIG". US Government "little". I wonder, if the French government were to announce that they supported or didn't support the IAHC plan, whether anybody would even comment on it?
Probably not, the French government doesn't contract out for the operation of the internet domain system.
There are, by the way, some mailing lists missing from the "CC" header in this thread. If we're going to spam NANOG, shouldn't we spam BASKET-WEAVERS too?
BTW, I admire lunacy in an individual...it gives them passion:-) Vince Wolodkin
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Vince Wolodkin writes:
Well, since IANA works for the US government as a subcontractor on the InterNIC contract, they should care. Or wait, does IANA even exist anymore??? Wasn't their contract already ended?
Could you quit spewing bullshit in public?
Perry
Gee Perry, your shit don't stink. I've never understood your moronic dual standard where you say NSI is a government contractor and should therefore be gone in 1998(you don't like NSI), but you turn around and even though IANA is a part of the SAME contract you want THEM to stay, because YOU like them. Get a grip. It's okay to say, "IANA is doing a good job and we think they should stay after their contract expires". It's okay to say "NSI is doing a bad job and therefore they can only stay if they join the CORE and sign the MoU". It's okay to say "We haven't put our gTLDs in the roots because we are negotiating behind the scenes to have it done." It's okay to say any of these things. I don't understand how you can deny that the IANA effort is a contracted function in the InterNIC contract and that ISI is in this function a contractor. You can still say they have done a good job and you wish them to continue, but right now, if the US gov't decides they want something done...IANA works for them. Vince Wolodkin
Sigh.
I don't understand how you can deny that the IANA effort is a contracted function in the InterNIC contract and that ISI is in this function a contractor.
Please spend a bit of time figuring out what the IANA is, how long it has existed, and how much money NSI paid to support the IANA in the past. Hint: Fleming isn't a good source. But please don't do your research via NANOG. Thanks, -drc
At 8:10 AM -0700 5/30/97, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
dual standard where you say NSI is a government contractor and should therefore be gone in 1998(you don't like NSI), but you turn around and even though IANA is a part of the SAME contract you want THEM to stay,
NSI inherited a simple, specific administration activity. IANA sets policy. NSI actions are directed by agreement with IANA and NSF. IANA actions are directed by general community consensus. Different scope. Different reporting structure. NSI is narrow. IANA is broad. NSI is clerical. IANA is policy. Thank you for playing. d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker@brandenburg.com Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org
Vince Wolodkin writes:
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Vince Wolodkin writes:
Well, since IANA works for the US government as a subcontractor on the InterNIC contract, they should care. Or wait, does IANA even exist anymore??? Wasn't their contract already ended?
Could you quit spewing bullshit in public?
Gee Perry, your shit don't stink. I've never understood your moronic dual standard where you say NSI is a government contractor and should therefore be gone in 1998(you don't like NSI), but you turn around and even though IANA is a part of the SAME contract you want THEM to stay, because YOU like them.
Vince, the IANA isn't a "contractor". Your saying so is bullshit, pure and simple. The IANA is a creature of the IAB. It predates even the current IAB/IESG structure. It is a slot appointed to manage the various name and number spaces created by internet standards -- everything from TCP port numbers to SNMP OID subspaces to domain names. The IANA has been funded from time to time by the U.S. government but is not a creature of the U.S. government. It doesn't cease to exist if government funding ceased to exist -- its written into literally hundreds of standards RFCs, and literally cannot be done without. The bullshit you spew about "does it even exist any more" is about the purest feces I can imagine, especially given the fact that the IANA continues to issue assigned numbers and the like every day -- even this very day. Regardless of how the IANA came into being, the IESG/IETF/IAB recognise its existance and continue to do so -- and so do international organizations like the ISO and the ITU that have a damn sight more authority on this than you do. This being the NANOG group, I'd say that most people here have personal knowledge of this and aren't going to listen to the Jim Flemingeque crap you spew on the subject anyway. However, I thought I ought to mention it just in case. Perry speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
"Richard J. Sexton" writes:
U.S. rejects Net name plan By Margie Wylie May 2, 1997, 5:45 p.m. PT
I'll make one last return visit. The article in question is not just inaccurate -- its completely inaccurate. We've already discussed it to death on newdom. Perry Speaking personally and not in any official capacity
participants (7)
-
Dave Crocker -
David R. Conrad -
Paul A Vixie -
Perry E. Metzger -
Richard J. Sexton -
Susan R. Harris -
Vince Wolodkin