Re: The view from my window

["David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>]

Hi,

>The folks with the most at stake, companies running new TLD registries,
>had absolutely no representation at all in this process. 

I would argue that an extremely small (albeit exceedingly loud) set of
organizations which have no significant effect on the current Internet
infrastructure are not among those with the most at stake.  The people with
the most at stake are the users and Internet service providers which rely on
a stable and functional naming system to provide services and get their work
done.

Further, the AlterNIC clique has been described as net.terrorists -- by their
actions threatening the very infrastructure the IAHC is supposed to be
addressing.  Should such individuals be included in discussions on the very
infrastructure they threaten?  The politically correct would probably say
yes, the pragmatic would simply ask "why?".  What do they bring to the table?
In what way are they "stakeholders" other than wanting to derive profits out
of a monopoly position on a resource that is considered a public resource
and likely moving the current .COM "problem" to the root.  Why would this be
a good thing?

>I find it amazing that the current IAHC draft doesn't even address the
>techincal and economic viabilty of prospective registry applicants. 

How would you objectively measure this?

>Furthermore, shared registries
>seem to propose quite a technical hurdle that has not even been
>addressed. 

As I have said in the past, I fail to see the difficulty in creating
a shared registry assuming you pick the model correctly (e.g., you
don't try the distributed database approach).  I believe the major
concern wasn't that providing a shared TLD was hard, but more that
the mechanisms to do so were not defined in open public standards.

>The Root64 project and the AlterNic
>businesses will have no choice but to go forward with renewed vigor. 

I suspect that they will be heading in the same direction they always have.
I also suspect the Internet will continue on in its same direction, with new
domains that are universally recognized.  I would not, however, characterize
the direction AlterNIC is going to be forward.

>I think it sad that the many businesses and families that have registered
>new TLDs, as well as the countless thousands of dollars invested by
>current registries, are completely ignored by the IAHC. 

You are right, as it is always sad when con-men put one over on unsuspecting
people.  However, I imagine any of the people taken in were very quick to
realize the limited usefulness of the bogus domains so I am somewhat
skeptical that they were harmed significantly.

>The IAHC claims
>to have the best interests of the public in mind, but what of these
>folks?

Which?  The con-men or the people taken in?

>Please, go forward with the new shared 7 gTLDs. But let
>some of us run our own private registries - please.

You are, of course, free to run your own private registries as you see fit
as AlterNIC so amply demonstrates.  However, the rest of the Internet does
not have to listen.  People rail about the evil monopoly NSI has over 
.COM|NET|ORG, yet the solution you propose is to create more monopolies.
The logic escapes me.  While I may not agree in full with the approach the
IAHC has taken, I much prefer the stability and incremental change it offers
over the unscalable chaos the AlterNIC approach would seem to represent.

Regards,
-drc
"There is only one problem in the Internet today: scaling" -- Mike O'Dell