[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: different views
Date sent: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:58:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
To: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
Subject: Re: different view
Organization: Memra Software Inc. - Internet consulting
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Marty Modell wrote:
> Let us start with some assumptions:
> The Internet has become highly commercial
I do not agree with this. It is true that commercial use of the
Internet has become highly visible and gets a large amount of coverage
in the press however I have not seen any study which measures how much
Internet use is commercial use as opposed to personal use or
educational use. I find that a lot of the people who have signed up
for accounts with commercial Internet providers over the past couple
of years are doing so because they value the access to information,
i.e. they have personal educational goals. Of course this is only my
personal observation.
MEM replies - Unless you live in cave these days it is impossible not
to see the overt signs of Internet commercialism. Almost every
printed advertisement has a URL associated with it, as to almost all
TV shows.
Almost any site you go to has at least some ad banner, or button
pushing some product or other. To me that is commercial.
There is a proliferation of companies who are making a nice living
developing and publishing web pages, all sorts of new job titles have
sprung up around the Internet. I just read an article that there are
30 million URLs out there in one of the search engines.
Companies like NetScape and Microsoft appear in the papers daily
touting their Internet products and now companies are pushing Internet
ready TVs
How can you possibly contend that the Internet has not become
commercial Now I grant you this is in the United States and things
may be different outside the US but I predict that will change as well
in time.
> I propose the following:
>
> That the handling of registration services be continued as a
> contractual function to ISOC.
Who will contract with who? It is my impression that no organization
currently has a legitimate claim to be contracting registration
services to anybody. The NSFnet has been disbanded and the US FNC
wants both themselves and NSF to get out of the Internet business.
Right now there is a vacuum similar to many other international
vacuums that were discovered and filled. Radio was invented and
suddenly there was a resource called "spectrum". Who had the right to
manage and allocate this resource? The telephone was invented and
suddenly there were resources such as area codes and country codes.
Who had the right to manage and allocate this resource. The steamship
and later the diesel ship engine were invented. Suddenly fishing
fleets could go anywhere on the oceans. Who has the right to manage
and allocate these extra-national oceanic resources?
<snip>
MEM replies - Granted there is no accepted authority to issue new
contracts but maybe agreeing on one and having them issue new
contracts would solve some of the problems. Every community needs
some rule making body to protect the common good and resolve disputes
between community members.
National and local rule making bodies are much more effective in
setting rules for their citizens than international bodies which must
work within a community of sovereign members. Formal rule making
bodies are much more effective than informal ones.
I suspect that an informal International rule making body such as
appears likely for the Internet will be extremely difficult to
establish but isn't that the real task that we face?
Without such an accepted body, no decisions can really be reached and
no decisions can really be enforced.
> Anticipated level of profit
There is precedent for placing a cap on profits by an organization
with monopoly rights.
> financial solvency and financial resources of the proposer
This is a major factor in making it impossible for anyone to offer
registry services as anything other than a profitmaking monopoly
business.
MEM replies -not so! This is just to ensure that the bidder has the
financial resources to fulfill their contractual obligations, and that
they have a legal entity that can be taken to court or arbitration if
need be.
> Each contract shall be for two years with three one year renewals at
> > the option of the contracting authority (ISOC, IAHC, or whoever)
The shorter time period between reviews is IMHO a good idea.
MEM replies - these renewal options are standard service contract
features, even the NSF contract with NSI was structured this way
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP
Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax:
+1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com -
E-mail: michael@memra.com
--
Marty Modell e-mail: ir001264@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~ir001264/Home.htm
author of
A Professional's Guide to Systems Analysis
Second Edition - McGraw Hill - 1996