Am I confused?

[Ron Fitzherbert <ron@penguin.net>]

Shouldn't the initial discussions (and therefore the IAHC Charter) really
be to come up with a set of "international/legally binding/undisputable"
guidlines for the operation of an iTLD registry?  It is well and good that
we are discussing the need for additional iTLD's (even though it could be
debated that rather than creating more we should eliminate  6 of the
current 7 (even if 3 of the 6 are EXTREMELY US-centric they do exist in
form as iTLDs) keeping .int even if no one uses it and moving everyone
else under the ISO codes?).

Better yet, should we maybe actually be discussing the "official"
formulation of a body (by international treaty) that actually has the
power to control the namespace (as opposed to the current way things are
where since most people use the offical root nameserver and since the
people who run the official ones still believe in the current "management"
that they follow the flow???

Wouldn't it just take a dozen or so machines and the convincing of a dozen
or so of the largest organizations to change which root servers they point
to undermine this whole process?

I personally *LIKE* the current "management" structure (IETF, ISOC, IANA,
IAB, IAHC, etc), but what makes them work?  Isn't it just other people
like me who also "like" them and follow their "lead"?

IMHO the worst thing (and maybe it will end up the best thing) that has
happened to the internet in the last 3 years was the NSF pulling out (in
general, not specifically in regards to namespace).  Now, I am not so
blind as to not understand the reasons behind it, but they were the
"POWERS THAT BE" -- they really did "legally" control things until
recently.

We now have Alternic (and others) out there who are not following the
"conventions" who are forcing the discussion we are having now regarding
expanding iTLDs.  It is a VALID thing to be discussing -- and I do think
that there are some major problems that do need to be worked out -- but
shouldn't the first "problem" be to "formally" establish a process?

The internet has changed drastically over the last few years, and the
changes to date have been minor compared to what is waiting around the
corner -- but the process now ongoing is being modeled after what has
worked in the past (and it worked because people allowed it to work, not
because it was forced to work) and unless someone can guarantee that
people like Alternic (and no, I am *NOT* picking on Alternic, they're just
the most identifable entity to pick on at the moment) will go away if they
are not selected as a registry, and that all of the new iTLDs will
function identically (with the possible exception of price and value-added
services) then I don't think this discussion is going to lead anywhere
useful.

And, to return to the topic of discussion, IMHO if we are going to
consider a process for new iTLDs I do think that the current ones should
be part of the new process.  Ie., we go back to ground 0 and re-evaluate
the current iTLDs and registry as part of this process with the
possibility of giving the current iTLDs to another registry, or
eliminating some or all of them based upon the selection criteria that
comes out of the IAHC.

Ron

  ---------------- Ronald J. Fitzherbert, President ---------------
       Flying Penguin Productions Limited - Arlington, VA (USA)
                Interactive Electronic Communications
           1.703.358.9219 (voice) 1.703.522.2798 (telefax)
  -------------------- http://www.penguin.net/ --------------------