On Thu, 22 May 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Duane Little writes:
Gee, this sort of thing looks a lot like the routine abuse of position and authority which is the usual result of a monopoly.
The monopoly in this case? --- IANA.
The government of Hati sent Jon Postel a request that the .HT domain be reassigned. The wishes of the government were followed. Is it your contention that the wishes of the Hatian government should NOT have been followed? Can you give us a basis in international law that makes you think Jon is in a position to deny the request of a sovereign state? Do you think the U.S. State Department would be pleased with Jon if he were to decide arbitrarily to assign any ISO-3166 TLD against the wishes of the government of that country?
SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost).
What would you have Jon do instead? Can you formulate a better policy?
You really just plain do not know what you are talking about or understand it.
Perry Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
Marc Hurst supposedly said:
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Duane Little writes:
Gee, this sort of thing looks a lot like the routine abuse of position and authority which is the usual result of a monopoly.
The monopoly in this case? --- IANA.
The government of Hati sent Jon Postel a request that the .HT domain be reassigned. The wishes of the government were followed. Is it your contention that the wishes of the Hatian government should NOT have been followed? Can you give us a basis in international law that makes you think Jon is in a position to deny the request of a sovereign state? Do you think the U.S. State Department would be pleased with Jon if he were to decide arbitrarily to assign any ISO-3166 TLD against the wishes of the government of that country?
SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost).
So? As soon as the Canadian Government directs the IANA to delegate ".ca" to Skyscape I am sure the IANA will change the delegation. Your statement has no relevance to this discussion. ---> Phil
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
Marc Hurst supposedly said:
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Duane Little writes:
Gee, this sort of thing looks a lot like the routine abuse of position and authority which is the usual result of a monopoly.
The monopoly in this case? --- IANA.
The government of Hati sent Jon Postel a request that the .HT domain be reassigned. The wishes of the government were followed. Is it your contention that the wishes of the Hatian government should NOT have been followed? Can you give us a basis in international law that makes you think Jon is in a position to deny the request of a sovereign state? Do you think the U.S. State Department would be pleased with Jon if he were to decide arbitrarily to assign any ISO-3166 TLD against the wishes of the government of that country?
SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost).
So? As soon as the Canadian Government directs the IANA to delegate ".ca" to Skyscape I am sure the IANA will change the delegation. Your statement has no relevance to this discussion.
The Canadian government had zero input in the selection of the University of British Columbia having this authority. Jon Postel told us when we asked that as long as John Demco is in that office he will have the registry. Might I add that there are other ca-domain board members who indiscriminately charge for registering in "free" domain space... The converstion is about sovereignty you fool...
---> Phil
Marc Hurst writes:
So? As soon as the Canadian Government directs the IANA to delegate ".ca" to Skyscape I am sure the IANA will change the delegation. Your statement has no relevance to this discussion.
The Canadian government had zero input in the selection of the University of British Columbia having this authority.
The way it works is simple. When a government directs the IANA to change a delegation for a country domain, it gets changed. If the government chooses not to give direction, IANA delegates to the best organization it can. Whether the Canadian government chose to get involved is immaterial -- if it chose, it would be obeyed. This whole thing started because some idiot called IANA listening to the Hatian government's request about the disposition of .HT an "abuse of power". Perhaps the reassignment was due to Hatian corruption, but that isn't within the power of the IANA to control, and certainly the IANA doesn't get any benefit out of the situation. Perry Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
It appears we have been arguing the same point... On Thu, 22 May 1997, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Marc Hurst writes:
So? As soon as the Canadian Government directs the IANA to delegate ".ca" to Skyscape I am sure the IANA will change the delegation. Your statement has no relevance to this discussion.
The Canadian government had zero input in the selection of the University of British Columbia having this authority.
The way it works is simple.
When a government directs the IANA to change a delegation for a country domain, it gets changed.
If the government chooses not to give direction, IANA delegates to the best organization it can.
Whether the Canadian government chose to get involved is immaterial -- if it chose, it would be obeyed.
This whole thing started because some idiot called IANA listening to the Hatian government's request about the disposition of .HT an "abuse of power". Perhaps the reassignment was due to Hatian corruption, but that isn't within the power of the IANA to control, and certainly the IANA doesn't get any benefit out of the situation.
Perry Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost).
How generous. But, Canadian ISPs have been working the issue for the last two years in conjunction with the previous naming authority. Having a new play blunder his way into the game seems unwise. -- ================= The hardest thing to see | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics is the way things REALLY are. | tg@utstat.toronto.edu
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Tom Glinos, x4302 wrote:
SKYSCAPE had offered IANA/Jon Postel to fund the ".ca" domain at no cost and no prejudice based on the premise and understanding that the Canadian government had stopped funding the project. SKYSCAPE was willing to fund the existing infrastructure as is (our cost).
How generous. But, Canadian ISPs have been working the issue for the last two years in conjunction with the previous naming authority.
Having a new play blunder his way into the game seems unwise.
Uh, we have been asking for the past two years. We are hardly new at this. In fact the CAIP has endorsed our proposal to repatriate the canadian ip registry.
-- ================= The hardest thing to see | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics is the way things REALLY are. | tg@utstat.toronto.edu
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Marc Hurst wrote:
Uh, we have been asking for the past two years. We are hardly new at this. In fact the CAIP has endorsed our proposal to repatriate the canadian ip registry.
To the best of my knowledge this is not true. The issue of a Canadian IP Registry appears to no longer be on CAIP's agenda. For instnace it is not mentioned at all in the report given April 24th at the CAIP AGM http://www.caip.ca/agmrepor.htm In fact, here is a quote from a Government of Canada report found at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/itt/engdoc/3g12.html in the Executive Summary section: The report finds that the economic cost of a Canadian IP registry would be high. Construction, or set-up costs would exceed $100,000, while the registry would probably suffer an operating loss, after deduction of fees to its users, of approximately $400,000 in its first year of operation. These costs would need to be absorbed by the Canadian ISPs, or passed on to customers. Offsetting benefits which might make such costs tolerable could not be identified. The Government of Canada does not appear to support repatriation of the IP registry function either. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush
I was not at the last CAIP meeting, but as far as I know there has been no endorsement by CAIP to repatriate IP registery. There was some discussion a year on doing this and CANARIE even offered to partly fund the costs of developing the registery. But I believe a consensus arose that it would be far more valuable for Canada to participate more actively in North American registery bodies such as ARIN. We would have a lot more influence on registery issues if we participate in North American forum rather than building our own services. Bill --- On Thu, 22 May 1997 08:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Marc Hurst wrote:
Uh, we have been asking for the past two years. We are hardly new at this. In fact the CAIP has endorsed our proposal to repatriate the canadian ip registry.
To the best of my knowledge this is not true. The issue of a Canadian IP Registry appears to no longer be on CAIP's agenda. For instnace it is not mentioned at all in the report given April 24th at the CAIP AGM http://www.caip.ca/agmrepor.htm
In fact, here is a quote from a Government of Canada report found at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_indps/itt/engdoc/3g12.html in the Executive Summary section:
The report finds that the economic cost of a Canadian IP registry would be high. Construction, or set-up costs would exceed $100,000, while the registry would probably suffer an operating loss, after deduction of fees to its users, of approximately $400,000 in its first year of operation. These costs would need to be absorbed by the Canadian ISPs, or passed on to customers.
Offsetting benefits which might make such costs tolerable could not be identified.
The Government of Canada does not appear to support repatriation of the IP registry function either.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
The bottom line is track record. Not track tearing. Not track derailing. But pounding the damn dirt around the track with the rest of us worms. -- Randy Bush
---------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Bill St. Arnaud CANARIE Inc Director Network Projects 470-410 Laurier Ave W Tel: +1 613 660-3497 Ottawa 199.212.24.5 Canada FAX: +1 613 660-3806 K1P 6H5 bill.st.arnaud@canarie.ca http://www.canarie.ca/bstarn
participants (6)
-
bill.st.arnaud＠canarie.ca -
Marc Hurst -
Michael Dillon -
Perry E. Metzger -
Philip J. Nesser II -
Tom Glinos, x4302