Re: A question about protocol

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

Perry,

  Please read below your comments.

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> Christopher Ambler writes:
> > I also believe that most feel the 60-day wait is a bad idea,
> 
> The legal types on both sides of the trademark law fence don't seem to
> dislike it, though. Carl Oppedahl, who has if anything been an
> outspoken proponent of reform, seems to favor it. Even Karl Auerbach
> seems to think some length of waiting period would be good although he
> disagrees with the length.

  Well, I have a law degree, but I do not claim to have a grasp of
the Trademark issues as do Karl A. or Carl O. may have.  With respect
to reform, I don't find the argument of a 60 day waiting period having
much to do with this issue in truth or practice.
> 
> > and that the lottery is a bad idea.
> 
> I've heard you say this repeatedly. I've also heard others say they
> like the thing.

  The lottery can work.  But their must be a method to be more
inclusive than stated in the peoposal.
> 
> Regardless, though, the restriction on the number of registries goes
> away eventually -- in all likelyhood in a fairly short time. When the
> restriction goes away, so does any random selection and allocation
> process. This means that even if the approach is overly conservative,
> it has a sunset on a date certain after which any qualified
> organization may run a registrar.

  Hummmm, I was not aware of this.  On what do you base this?  I 
tend to agree that the approach is too conservitive, however. 
> 
> Of course, this might not serve the interests of some people who want
> to get into the registration business early on. Indeed, in the
> presence the sunset provision, one of the major arguments given
> against the allocation mechanism has been that it will be "unfair" to
> organizations wishing to become registrars as soon as
> possible. No one, however, has argued that the mechanism would be
> particularly bad for the *users* of the system.

  Are not potential Registrars and their potential employees users?
> 
> I'm not sure that the primary basis for our decision can or should be
> the commercial interests of a fairly small number of organizations.
> The interest of the vast majority of users of the net comes before the
> commercial interests of a fairly small number.

  Define small number.  There are thousands of commercial intrests,
with thousands of employees, whom would be users, correct?
> 
> Arguments to the effect that an action might be contrary to the
> interests of the users of the DNS are more potent than arguments to
> the effect that an act is "unfair" to the business interests of
> registrars. The IAHCs main interest is in assuring that the needs of
> the users of the system are met.

  Like I said befor, commercial companies are users as well, so are
their employees or partners.
> 
> I would naturally expect any organization with a plan to become a
> registrar vigorously opposing the selection process and desiring
> immediate opening, for the same reason that I would expect any such
> organization to lobby as hard as it could for a monopoly TLD
> allocation instead of sharing. The recent thread in which someone
> suggested that people who'd been involved in this process should all
> be given registrar slots won widespread support -- from the
> organizations that have been lobbying to enter this business all
> along. Very little of that entire thread, however, focused on the
> users of the system -- all of it seems to be oriented towards the idea
> that "fair" means "fair to the people entering the business." The DNS,
> however, does not exist to provide a profit center to anyone, although
> it might happen to do so as a side effect.

  I agree with you in general here.  This should be done in a way that
provides for the good of all concerned.  That includes buisness
intrests,
not just common users or non-commercial users.  Both must be satisfied
in as much is possible.  Niether should have a overwhelming advantage
as to how or what ist to be put forth.  
> 
> Arguments to the effect that the existing gTLD manager is doing X so
> why shouldn't we are also fairly weak to my mind, since the existing
> manager is in its position by virtue of historical accident and, as
> the document clearly states, it is our desire that all players operate
> on a level field soon. Saying we should do something disruptive to the
> users on the basis that it would permit more companies to emulate a
> system that we wish to eliminate doesn't make logical sense. We made a
> conscious decision not to impose a waiting period until all gTLDs had
> a waiting period on the basis that we did not wish to bias people
> against using the new registries, but that was done for the benefit of
> the users of the system, not for the benefit of the registrars.

  Remember, everyone is a potential user!
> 
> > My "revised draft" was an effort to synthesize some of the major
> > concerns with the 19Dec draft into something closer to consensus.

  And it achieved that.  But still needs work.
> 
> I believe you included several elements, including a non-shared TLD
> allocation mechanism, which are decidedly against the grain of what
> general consensus has produced thus far.

  This is the second time I have heard this.  And so far the facts
don't support that conclusion, to my knowledge.
> 
> I'm not sure you are exactly in an unbiased enough position to be
> judging consensus, btw.

  I certianly agree with this statment!! :)

> 
> Perry
> Speaking for myself, not for the IAHC

Regaards,


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