Re: The view from my window

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

Christopher,

  Please read below your comments.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> I have to disagree that a random process is the only way to choose from
> among an equally qualified set. But rather than argue it, I have to
> reiterate that there is no need to choose! You have an objective set
> of criteria, one which this process is well suited to create (remember
> consensus), and all that qualify participate.

  I agree in part with what you assert here.  But there is more than
meets the eye here.
> 
> Again, the only argument against this is that if it fails to work,
> there are only 25 registries participating in the failure rather than
> some larger number. But it doesn't have to fail! There are a number
> of registries out there RIGHT NOW that work just fine. Aside from
> political issues, NSI is doing a right nice job. There are vocal
> complaints from some, but overall they're working nicely. Our .web
> registry works fine, thank you. For that matter, if it doesn't,
> nobody is hurt but us! You can claim that you're looking out for
> the consumer, but if that is the case, where's the regulation for
> traditional ISPs? America Online inconvenienced HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
> of people when they made operational changes and crashed, and who
> was hurt? THEY WERE. People vote with their dollars.

  You are right!  People do vote with their dollars.  So do registries!
If these existing regisrites can see a way of cutting cost's by cutting
down
on the quality or number of quality administrators, technicians, etc.,
they
will do so, unless there is a standard.  I would not recomend, nor
advocate
any "Regulations"  but would want to see that they have some "bottom
like"
standards that is accepted throughout the rest of the industry.  

  You use AOL's problem a while back as an example.  I was called in to
evaluate
and help to redesign their Network,  It was deplorable, and managed by
mostly
incompatant people.  Still is!  In addition it caused problems for more
than just
their customer base.  It caused problems for many other providers as
well!
> 
> If there is no technical solution for sharing that works now, then
> grant competant registries exclusive use of selected TLDs until there
> is. Allow the monopoly to be broken NOW and these registries to build
> infrastructure. Form CORE and allow it to proceed to create a standard
> for sharing, and put in the licensing agreement that all registries
> agree to share when the protocol is completed.

  Here you have a good point.  This is a good idea.  I think there may
be
some enforcment problems, but in general it's a good idea.
> 
> NSI's contract expires in 1998. When that happens, they can share as
> well. Will they? Good question. WHO CARES? Let them have com/net/org
> and let new registries have their TLDs and LET THE MARKET DECIDE. There
> is NO REASON to apply all of these artificial regulations!

  We are not talking about "Regulations"!  We are talking about
standards.
In this case, your point is well taken. LET THE MARKET DECIDE?  Sure, I 
agree with that in theroy.  But in practice, not exceptable entirely,
for
the reasons I stated above.  None of our sites currently will allow AOL
to do links to our site's.  Becouse they have not decided to upgrade
their
compatancy to meet our requirnments.  I have spoken with Steve Case on
this
matter several times.  

Regards,
 
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.

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