Re: A long strange trip

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

Jim and all,

  First let me say I really liked this posting.  It has asserted much
if not all or the objections that I and several others have posted to
this forum.  I hole that everyone reads it very carefully.  Jim makes
some very good points her and quite eloquently as well.  If those
on the IACH are listening they would do well to pay head.  It would
seem to me that what Jim has stated here, in such good form, will
be or is the majority opinion out there.  Though there mey be some
on this list that may differ.  

  Let us all hope that there is this kind of reasoning within the
IAHC and CORE.  Though from reviewing the draft and some of the 
comments that have been made here, I have my doubts.  But I 
suppose that really havs little consequence.  Becouse if they are
not, the desaster that Jim has eluded to here will most likely
occur, and when least expected.  This would be bad for ALL
internet users.  It is my wish that this should not happen, but
if it does, no one can clain ignorance, and org's likd IANA,
IACH and CORE, will lose any creditability they ever had with
the public at large world wide.  

Regards,


Jim Dueltgen wrote:
> 
> Well, it's been a long and mostly frustrating several hours catching up on
> the aftermath of the Draft Spec of the 19th.  I feel the need to contribute
> my comments, as I am told over and over again by
> members-of-the-IAHC-speaking-for-themselves that they are sincerely
> desired.  I do not have an alternate draft spec to propose nor do I think I
> can respond to each and every good point made in the last few days.  I will
> say that both Simon Higgs and Christopher Ambler are doing good work
> creating alternate Spec constructions and I look forward to working on a
> compromise draft from the members of this list.  Right now, however, I need
> to vent and would like to add my comments to the mix, as concisely as
> possible, and assume that the rest of you will be able to pick up the
> context from the various threads that are going on.
> 
> I will put my biases up front, but only for context, no skipping on to
> Perry's next cryptic one-liner just because you think you know what I'm
> going to say.  Be it known henceforth:  I am a U.S.-based Internet Service
> Provider who is interested in managing one or more new generic Top Level
> Domains.
> 
> Without further ado:
> 
> The Draft Spec of the 19th is lousy.  It failed to significantly
> incorporate ideas and concerns raised on this list and others in the last
> few months and succeeded in making the IAHC appear to be in the hip pocket
> of "registrars for existing gTLDs."  I think we pretty much need to start
> from scratch.
> 
> The entire draft is predicated on a faulty assumption.  The Internet top
> level domain space ceased to be a public trust the minute that NSI started
> charging for domain name "ownership."  If it's a pubilc trust then it needs
> to be funded by US Federal taxes or UN Sponsorship, neither of which is a
> viable option in my opinion.  That said, "any administration, use and/or
> evolution of the Internet TLD space IS [emphasis mine] a public policy
> issue and must be carried out in an open and public manner in the
> interests..." of all Internet participants, NOT "the public."  The Internet
> is no longer a managed trust.  It is a vast interconnection of
> heterogeneous networks that all agree at some level on how to exchange
> information and has achieved sufficient consumer penetation to become
> reason enough for the private sector to pump money into its growth and
> sustainability.  The I*s are absolutely vital to this growth and
> sustainability but they need to fundamentally change their mandate to
> reflect the current reality of the net.  "The public" is benefitting from
> the greatly increased business focus of the Internet of the last several
> years, far more than at any time in the past when it was "managed" for us.
> Now is not the time to put the brakes on so that the I*s can stick to the
> letter of their original mandate.  You are not losing your power or your
> jobs, or selling out your original mandate in this new world, but your
> constituency has changed.  Your approach needs to reflect that.
> 
> Q: What is driving the need for additional TLDs?  A: The commercial market.
> Who should decide what those new gTLDs should be?  The IAHC?  No, same
> answer as the first question.  If the IAHC presumes to dictate and regulate
> the market in the manner described in their Draft we are all in for a
> disaster or at best something so wonderfully consensusized as to be
> completely useless.  The IAHC should guide the Internet community in
> technical standards not implementation details.  To get specific, I can't
> come up with seven TLDs that I would use in a shared enviroment and I don't
> think we should for this Spec.  Just as an exercise, can anyone come up
> with a good list of seven to start with?  I know I won't post it because I
> can just imagine the amount of useless flame-mail that would generate.
> Besides, I can't think of any that wouldn't be better managed by a monopoly
> except for maybe .ISP ;-).
> 
> Shared domains are not a good idea for the Internet.  I appreciate the
> idealism of the description of registries, registrars and stewards and I
> understand that it is a system that works for 800 numbers, but when this is
> presented as a preservation of the "public trust..."  Sheesh.  All we have
> done here is come up with an abstraction layer to the problem under the
> guise of protecting the "public trust" which doesn't exist.  And then, who
> watches the watchmen?  This is not a "useful market control" if such a
> thing exists.  If there is ultimately a fixed price resource (in this case
> whatever it costs the registrar to register a name with the steward) and a
> fixed number of shared gTLDs then there are a finite number of ways for
> registrars to differentiate their services and acheive profit.  And make no
> mistake, if there is no profit to be had there are no new gTLDs.
> 
> TLDs should be awarded to any organization on the following objective
> technical criteria:  redundant connectivity to the Internet (either two
> physically distant sites, both geographically and in regards to network
> connection, and/or multi-homing) aggregated to at least 3 MBps, functioning
> root servers and a functioning registry database with a whois interface.
> 
> The IAHC Draft section on Choosing gTLD Registrars only makes a business
> case for large corporations to participate.  There is very little incentive
> for an entrepreneur to be involved.  Most particularly because of the high
> entrance fee, the unpredictable nature of a lottery, and the uneven playing
> field with regard to NSI until 1998 and quite liekely beyond.  This model
> only makes sense for large utility companies that can throw $20,000 away to
> buy a seat on the Council of Registrars and is certainly no guarantee of
> competence or desire to deliver superior product or service.
> 
> And finally, the trademark issue.  Registrars, registries, ISPs, IAHCs,
> IANA's and anyone else who participates in assigning a mnemonic to an IP
> address should refrain from making any statement about copyright.
> Copyright, like every other piece of information on the net should be the
> responsibility of the data's owner, not the carrier or any administrative
> party.  Any disputes that arise should be handled by entities outside of
> the administrative process of assigning names to IP numbers.  Resolutions
> should not involve the registries except to cancel one registration and
> start another.
> 
> There, I've now spent the equivalent of an 8 hour day working on this
> issue.  I will now break for a brief vacation and will return to another 8
> hour day of catch up.  Thank you for your attention.  I look forward to
> your responses.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jim Dueltgen
> Vice President                           Phone: (510) 843-6389
> LanMinds, Inc.                           Fax:   (510) 843-6390
> 1700 Martin Luther King Jr. Way          Internet: jimd@lanminds.com
> Berkeley, CA. 94709                      http://www.lanminds.com

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