Re: FCFS and prior use

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Karl,

  I think you stated this very well.  It would seem to me that there are
some
whom would want to be a dominant figure in this process.  Thereby
determining
for all, what the rules will be, instead of haveing broadeer
participation.
This I think is a dangerous path to take for the internet.  It would
lose it's
creditability as a medium for business and advertising as well as a
public
service facility to all to use.

Regards,


Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> > >you WERE MORALLY obligated to respect the FCFS and prior use
> >
> >       A number of people have asserted the requirement for the proposal
> > to use or attend to both of these.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> >       I'd be interested in seeing some explanation for, and discussion
> > of, the reason the first come/first served is necessarily the assignment
> > scheme that must be used.
> 
> Because you recognized the over 100 existing cases in which that assertion
> is currently operative (COM/NET/ORG/EDU/ISO-codes)
> 
> >       Similarly, what is the basis for claiming that those active in what
> > is being called "prior use" must be factored in to the specification.
> 
> For the identical reason as the above.
> 
> You have no authority to discriminate, and attempting to do so only opens
> the way for the following:
> 
> 1)      Legal challenges to the members personally, the ISOC, the IANA and
>         the IAHC (probably in that order) alleging various violations of
>         anti-trust, racketeering, and other miscellaneous items.  I think
>         that the allegations of racketeering might be a bit strong, but
>         perhaps not -- especially if any of the input or influence in the
>         decisions can be traced to the current monopolists.  If that turns
>         out to be the case, then I believe that criminal RICO prosecution is
>         not only appropriate, it is demanded.
> 
> 2)      You grossly raise the probability that large portions of the net
>         will defect entirely to another system for allocating TLDs.  If that
>         happens, the allocation integrity of the ADDRESS SPACE is in jeopardy,
>         since both devolve from the same initial point.  In other words, you
>         may be responsible for truly breaking the network (as opposed to
>         Perry's ranting about pirates and DNS issues).
> 
> 3)      You invite US Congressional intervention.  Bigtime.  It is
>         inarguable that the Federal Government was the driving force behind
>         the development of the Internet.  To attempt to do things which
>         cause slanted playing fields to be generated, monopoly interest
>         to be protected (or given a "favored" status) and trade to be
>         restrained just begs for the legislative folks to get involved
>         in a fashion that NOBODY WANTS.  Including me.
> 
> I was waiting for 19 December in the hopes that we would see a rational
> policy which accomplshed the following goals:
> 
> 1)      WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, opened the door to free and
>         full competition within the TLD namespace.
> 
> 2)      WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, removed competitive barriers.
> 
> 3)      WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, redressed the grievances which
>         individuals and corporations have raised about certain entities
>         conduct over the previous 16 months.
> 
> What I saw instead was an insular bunch of folks who:
> 
> 1)      Slammed the door on effective competition.
> 2)      Protected the existing monopolists and practices.
> 3)      Failed to redress EVEN ONE of the grievances which were brought
>         to your attention.
> 4)      AND, most importantly, CREATED NEW GRIEVANCES out of whole cloth!
> 
> I really, really hope you folks kept minutes of ALL your meetings and copies
> of all correspondance from everyone you talked to, including postings here,
> all notes traded between members, etc.
> 
> Further, I challenge you and the other members to publish ALL OF THEM in an
> open public manner so that the public can see how you arrived at these
> conclusions.
> 
> Absent that, I believe its time that Janet Reno opened an investigation
> and/or appointed a special prosecutor to see if any CRIMINAL laws have
> been broken.
> 
> I'm dead serious about this.
> 
> --
> --
> 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

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com