Re: Applications and Public Trust (was Re: Expansion of theIAHC)

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:53 PM -0500 12/5/96, Vince Wolodkin wrote:

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > Vince Wolodkin allegedly said:
> > >
> > > It seems the basic dispute here is Perry says "Historically it was
> > > handled like this" while Simon says "RFC 1591 says it is supposed to be
> > > handled differently".  Well, here comes the hard part ---  I don't think
> > > you are disagreeing.  RFC 1591 needs rewritten coming out of the IAHC
> > > process.
> >
> > I carefully reread RFC1591.  It needs to be replaced, there is no
> > doubt about it.  However, Simons thesis that somehow RFC1591 supports
> > the idea that the applications that were shoved at the IANA should be
> > "honored" is wrong, IMO.  It's just not there in the document.  And,
> > while I haven't been around for all of the newdom debate, I did
> > witness a fair amount, and it is clear the the applications were being
> > used by the applicants as a lever to force the IANA to do something it
> > wasn't prepared to do.
> >
> > Simon insists it is a trust issue.  Yes, it is, but not in the way
> > that he thinks.  My reading is that the IANA was put in an awkward
> > position by a group of opportunists who saw a chance to grab something
> > while no one was looking, if only they could get Jon and the IANA to
> > agree with them.  However, the IANA were essentially holding the name
> > space in trust for the internet community at large, and rightfully
> > resisted the pressure brought to bear.  The pressure (in the form of
> > legal threats) was extreme.
> >

Let's look at what really happened. NSF cleared NSI to charge for
registrations. SAIC bought NSI the same day NSF stopped it's funding.
Everyone saw SAIC/NSI with a nice little monopoly and asked why
couldn't they compete? The model that was followed by just about TLD
applicant was the one set by InterNIC and it's operators in the first
place. Of course there was pressure. That's what happens when the lid
is kept on a boiling pot - no explanation was provided to the community
as to why an unsanctioned for-profit monopoly had been created that
affected so many people without any recourse. What did you expect to
happen? There are always going to be legal recourses cited that people
are familiar with. That's built into the American culture (if you can't
have it, sue those that do have it).

Call it whatever you want, but you can't expect people to behave
differently on the net to the way they do off the net. And all they are
doing is reacting to a particular set of circumstances placed in front
of them. Right now, many of them are evaluating who they can really
trust as an authority, and who can provide the necessary policy/process
to return them to their comfort level.

IAHC have the ball.


Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.