Re: Registries and iTLDs

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> Karl Denniger wrote...
> 
> > Specifically, why was not the NSI charter INSTANTLY revoked when they took
> > the steps they did with their policy and fee structure?
> > 
> > Why, to this day, has it not been revoked?
> > 
> > Why, if it was delegated to the NSFNet, and THEY refused to address the
> > issues, did the ISOC not revoke it from *THEM*?
> > 
> > Why, if the IAHC and/or ISOC truly believes that the namespace is a public
> > good in its entirety, has it not compelled (under threat of removal of
> > franchise) NSI to return the funds and cease collecting more funds from
> > domain registrants -- many of whom NEVER consented to such billing, and many
> > of whom registered with the EXPLICIT understanding that the registration and
> > operation would be free?
> > 
> 
> Karl,
> 
> I would suggest you have your facts wrong and would recommend a
> read of:
> 
> 	http://rs.internic.net/nsf/fee-narrative.html
> 
> which details the evolution of fees.  Bottom-line, it was not an
> independent decision on the part of NSI but rather was allowed for
> in the original NSF solicitation (which we won on a competitive
> basis) and was recommended by two independent panels, one
> an IEEE workshop on the issue of .COM and the other a community
> review of the InterNIC project after it's second year.
> 
> The solicitation, our proposal and subsequent cooperative-agreement,
> as well as the IEEE and independent review panel documents may be
> found by the URL above as well.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom
> 
> Tom Newell                  tomn@internic.net      +1 703 742 4796
> Mngr, Info & Educ Svcs      InterNIC Registration Services 

None of which is relavent Tom.

Don Heath has stated that he believes the namespace is a public good and
that *NO* organization is entitled to profit unreasonably in excess of
documentable costs from administering it.

Don Heath is the President of the ISOC.

The ISOC has the power and authority to REMOVE the delegation to the NSFNet,
and thereby, to NSI, for COM, ORG, EDU and NET.

I am well aware of how the fees came into being.  They're not relavent to
the fact that Don Heath believes that NO FIRM has the right to profit in a
monopolistic (or any other) manner from administration of the namespace.

Nor are they relavent to the fact that I don't believe him -- as he has
not acted in accordance with his stated position.

Actions speak much louder than words.

If NO COMPANY may profit in this fashion, then the grant of the namespace to
NSF became invalid when you were issued the original cooperative agreement
specifying that you could impose fees, and you ratified that invalidity when
you in fact DID impose fees.

That the ISOC failed to act, as did the IANA, is not germane to the point
that either TLDs can be owned or they cannot.

If they can, then you and *every other firm that wants to run one* has a
legal right and claim to do so.  Including each and every operational
registry for the experimental domains today, in a FCFS order for those which
are constructively and ACTUALLY online.

If they cannot, then your grant of those namespaces was and remains improper,
along with every nickel beyond direct, documented reasonable cost (including
any excess cost which you imposed on yourself through unjustifyable policies
and attempts to play Judge).  In that case those funds belong to the
American People (and others) who paid them, and must be returned forthwith.

Which is it?

You can't have one without the other.

--
--
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
			     | 33 Analog Prefixes, 65 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal