IAHC Backtracks on Registrar Lottery
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars. Under a memorandum of understanding signed last week, the IAHC limited the number of name registrars to 28 worldwide, to be selected by lottery. Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor? 2) So there will be an unlimited number of registrars? I thought that everyone meeting the financial and technical qualifications was _already_ eligible (if they applied), and that the lottery would determine which of them _became_ registrars. Call me confused. __ Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor?
Are these requirements listed anywhere? I've got customers chomping at the bit to get at these new domains. I just need to know how to register these domains.
Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number 27.." I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come up they're very responsive. They basically started the whole ballgame, why change?
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor?
2) So there will be an unlimited number of registrars? I thought that everyone meeting the financial and technical qualifications was _already_ eligible (if they applied), and that the lottery would determine which of them _became_ registrars.
Call me confused.
__ Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
-- jamie g.k. rishaw <jamie@@iagnet.net> Internet Access Group Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net] DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 11:35:48 -0400 (EDT) From: jamie@dilbert.iagnet.net (Jamie Rishaw) I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come up they're very responsive. Clearly, this is some use of the words "reliable", "stable", and "responsive" to which I am heretofore unaccustomed. They basically started the whole ballgame, why change? I'll bet there are people at SRI International and Government Systems Inc who woud be very interested to learn that! ---rob
Jamie, You should certainly do whatever you feel is the best for your business, but I do have to point out that your statement about the Internic starting it all is very misleading although technically true. There have been three companies who have been the "Internic". It is a job which has been bid out by the NSF and NSI is jusst the current holder of the job. Its like saying that I trust Bill Clinton because hey the President has led the US pretty good for the last two hundred tweny years or so :-) ---> Phil Jamie Rishaw supposedly said:
Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number 27.."
I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come up they're very responsive. They basically started the whole ballgame, why change?
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor?
2) So there will be an unlimited number of registrars? I thought that everyone meeting the financial and technical qualifications was _already_ eligible (if they applied), and that the lottery would determine which of them _became_ registrars.
Call me confused.
__ Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
-- jamie g.k. rishaw <jamie@@iagnet.net> Internet Access Group Chance favors the prepared mind. __ [http://www.iagnet.net] DID:216.902.5455 FAX:216.623.3566 \/ 800:800.637.4IAGx5455
At 8:35 AM -0700 5/7/97, Jamie Rishaw wrote:
Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number 27.."
You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data base.
I can probably speak for a _lot_ of people when I say that we will probably continue to do business exclusively with the InterNIC, no matter how cheap the others are: The InterNIC has proven itself to me to be reliable, stable, and in the case where problems _do_ come up they're very responsive. They basically started the whole ballgame, why change?
1. Business decisions which are adequate to the purpose and which greatly simplify the running of the business are almost always to be preferred. If dealing with NSI achieves this, so much the better for you. It will, however, be interesting to see whether NSI's limited choice of top-level names (for now) is preferred by your 2. You are, indeed, fortunate to have missed the many and varied problems that NSI has experienced in learning to do their business, such as multiple billings and inappropriate holds on names. 3. NSI didn't start anything and certainly nothing to do with .com. This all pre-dated them by many years. d/ ---------------------------- Dave Crocker, Director +1 408 246 8253 Internet Mail Consortium (f) +1 408 249 6205 127 Segre Place dcrocker@imc.org Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA http://www.imc.org Also: iPOC member, expressing personal opinions http://www.iahc.org
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 11:20:24AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
At 8:35 AM -0700 5/7/97, Jamie Rishaw wrote:
Isn't it confusing enough to deal with the InterNIC, let alone telling a customer "Oh yeah, well we registered it with registry number 27.."
You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data base.
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single monolithic database for all TLDs... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
At 3:59 PM -0700 5/7/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single monolithic database for all TLDs...
I suspect that's because people often confuse roles with implementations. 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
On May 7, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 11:20:24AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: [ . . . ]
You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data base.
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single monolithic database for all TLDs...
It's called DNS. Can we get over this idle guessing and wait for somebody to actually release some /facts/, please? ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
It's called DNS.
Is is not. The DNS is a depolyed protocol set which provides mappings. Though a bit creaky and having 42 bags hung on the side of it, it is still a pretty reasonable protocol set. It should not be confused with the brain-dead garbage some people are advocating throwing in it. randy
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 08:46:00PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
It's called DNS.
Is is not. The DNS is a depolyed protocol set which provides mappings. Though a bit creaky and having 42 bags hung on the side of it, it is still a pretty reasonable protocol set.
It should not be confused with the brain-dead garbage some people are advocating throwing in it.
Could you be just a bit more specific, and perhaps expand on why you feel this way? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 10:31:47PM -0400, J.D. Falk wrote:
On May 7, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 11:20:24AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: [ . . . ]
You don't register "with" a registrar, you register "through" them with CORE. No matter who you register through, it lands in the same data base.
It is statements like these (which have appeared with some regularity in the past) that make me believe that IAHC/iPOC have in mind a single monolithic database for all TLDs...
It's called DNS.
It could be DNS -- I wrote a draft suggesting that and submitted it to the IAHC, and later implemented shared registry software that does exactly that -- but the model currently favored by iPOC etc seems to be a commercial database which generates zone files to feed to DNS. DNS is run, apparently, by possibly yet another contractor to CORE. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor?
You can find links to a few stories about the lottery being dropped at: http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn/naming.html Randy
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Todd Graham Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Cameo Wood wrote:
Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
1) URL, por favor?
2) So there will be an unlimited number of registrars? I thought that everyone meeting the financial and technical qualifications was _already_ eligible (if they applied), and that the lottery would determine which of them _became_ registrars.
Exactly as you stated. An applicant still has to be qualified as per the previous rules. It is just that after you are qualified - there is no lottery and you become part of the Council Of REgistrars.
Call me confused.
__ Todd Graham Lewis MindSpring Enterprises tlewis@mindspring.com
Hank Nussbacher iPOC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other iPOC members]
I fail to see how it is possible that the IAHC announced anything this week; the IAHC was dissolved on 1 May 97 when the gTLD-MoU was signed. There is absolutely nothing to the effect of your statement on the IAHC web page (http://www.iahc.org/), and there is no new IETF draft from the (dissolved) IAHC in the InterNIC archives. Where did this information come from? Stephen At 10:47 07 05 97 -0400, Cameo Wood wrote:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars. Under a memorandum of understanding signed last week, the IAHC limited the number of name registrars to 28 worldwide, to be selected by lottery. Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
Stephen, The announcement came from the iPOC which is really the old IAHC members (minus the ex-officaio ones) until the real POC is formed. This has lead to some confusion and attribution of things to the IAHC which as you correctly point out, has been disolved. ---> Phil Stephen Sprunk supposedly said:
I fail to see how it is possible that the IAHC announced anything this week; the IAHC was dissolved on 1 May 97 when the gTLD-MoU was signed.
There is absolutely nothing to the effect of your statement on the IAHC web page (http://www.iahc.org/), and there is no new IETF draft from the (dissolved) IAHC in the InterNIC archives.
Where did this information come from?
Stephen
At 10:47 07 05 97 -0400, Cameo Wood wrote:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars. Under a memorandum of understanding signed last week, the IAHC limited the number of name registrars to 28 worldwide, to be selected by lottery. Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
The PR was actually released by the Internet Society. Randy On Wed, 7 May 1997, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
Stephen,
The announcement came from the iPOC which is really the old IAHC members (minus the ex-officaio ones) until the real POC is formed. This has lead to some confusion and attribution of things to the IAHC which as you correctly point out, has been disolved.
---> Phil
Stephen Sprunk supposedly said:
I fail to see how it is possible that the IAHC announced anything this week; the IAHC was dissolved on 1 May 97 when the gTLD-MoU was signed.
There is absolutely nothing to the effect of your statement on the IAHC web page (http://www.iahc.org/), and there is no new IETF draft from the (dissolved) IAHC in the InterNIC archives.
Where did this information come from?
Stephen
At 10:47 07 05 97 -0400, Cameo Wood wrote:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars. Under a memorandum of understanding signed last week, the IAHC limited the number of name registrars to 28 worldwide, to be selected by lottery. Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
Cameo Wood writes:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars.
There is no IAHC any more. The IAHC finished its work and disbanded. The rest of your posting is also a mischaracterization. The POC and PAB folks announced that we're exploring removing the limits -- no formal proposal has yet been made. Perry speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
Under a memorandum of understanding signed last week, the IAHC limited the number of name registrars to 28 worldwide, to be selected by lottery. Citing "consistent and universal criticism," the IAHC announced that any service meeting financial and technical qualifications will be eligible to become a registrar. No lottery will be held.
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 02:26:33PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Cameo Wood writes:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new system of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars.
There is no IAHC any more. The IAHC finished its work and disbanded.
The rest of your posting is also a mischaracterization. The POC and PAB folks announced that we're exploring removing the limits -- no formal proposal has yet been made.
Perry speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
So David Crocker did not tell the truth in the panel discussion yesterday at N+I (at which I and others spoke?) Either it has been removed or it has not. If it has, then it has. If it has not, then saying that it has in a public forum with video cameras rolling is misleading AT BEST. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
Karl Denninger writes:
On Wed, May 07, 1997 at 02:26:33PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Cameo Wood writes:
Acting only five days after its highly publicized adoption of a new syste
m
of registering new domain names, the International Ad Hoc Committee announced Tuesday that it will remove its limit on registrars.
There is no IAHC any more. The IAHC finished its work and disbanded.
The rest of your posting is also a mischaracterization. The POC and PAB folks announced that we're exploring removing the limits -- no formal proposal has yet been made.
So David Crocker did not tell the truth in the panel discussion yesterday at N+I (at which I and others spoke?)
I'll quote the news release for the benefit of those who did not read it: Details for this new arrangement have not yet been worked into a formal proposal. The interim Policy Oversight Committee will put forward an alternative plan for this new arrangement shortly, after consulting with the Policy Advisory Body, formed from existing signatories to the gTLD-MoU, and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and the Internet Society. Perry Speaking personally, and not in any official capacity
participants (17)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Cameo Wood -
Dave Crocker -
Dave Crocker -
Geoff White -
Hank Nussbacher -
J.D. Falk -
jamie＠dilbert.iagnet.net -
Karl Denninger -
Kent Crispin -
Perry E. Metzger -
Philip J. Nesser II -
randy＠psg.com -
rbenn＠clark.net -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Stephen Sprunk -
Todd Graham Lewis