Re: Thread 3: selection of registrars

["Marty Modell" <ir001264@mindspring.com>]

> NSI could, if they wanted to, share on 1 March 1997, making a lottery
> unnecessary. Are you prepared for this possibility? If so, then you
> must be prepared to implement without a lottery. If you are so
> prepared, then commit to it now.

Unless their contract permits it NSI may not be able to shre in March 
of '97, However if NSF says it can then they may be able to.  
Contractors (i.e. NSI) are somewhat restricted in what they can do 
unilaterally.
 
> If you are not so prepared, then that must mean that you know that NSI
> won't share until, at a minimum, the agreement expires.

As an additional note NSI has no rights to .com after their contract 
expires, nor does it have any rights to any materials from the 
contract unless NSF has expressly said it has.  Which I do not believe 
it has done.  If NSI refuses to relinquish the materials and control of 
.com they can be sued.  It would constitute theft among other things. 
 I know of no contractor who was allowed to keep government materials 
past the contract end.  There are more rules and regulations 
governing contract termination than I can shake a stick at.  The most 
prominent one being the FAR or Federal Acquisition Regulations.


Denying they access to the root servers sounds like an excellent idea 
if they decide to usurp the .com  That would put them in the same 
boat as Alternic. No offense to Eugene but without access to the root 
servers any names registered by them are known only to them.

> Furthermore, what if NSI refuses to share at all, at any time? What
> recourse does the IAHC, CORE, IANA, ISOC, et. al. have? What happens
> if the NSF just renews the contract as written? For that matter, what
> if they dissolve it alltogether? What compels NSI to join CORE? Why
> can't they keep going as they're going? They certainly don't need
> the money from the NSF, and that 30% increase in revenue generated by
> their halting of the "Internet Fund" contributions will cover the
> loss of NSF funds nicely.

I believe that those who have a beef with NSI and who believe that 
NSI will try to take over .com, etc. should take their beef up with 
NSF.  They are the one who own .com these days.  NSI acts under their 
(NSF's) authority NSF also controls the distribution of the set-aside 
funds.

There is no guarantee that NSI will win a registry slot in the 
lottery, and theirfore no guarantee they will be a registrar.

The idea of a central registry holding all names and registrars who 
are granted rights to update that registry precludes anyone but 
authorized registrars for selling/renting/registring names.  If NSI 
is not an authorized registrar they have no access to the registry  
If the root servers accept names from only the registry effective 
control is achieved.

> I cannot believe that the IAHC hasn't asked themselves these questions.
> I cannot believe that the IAHC doesn't have some of these answers. Care
> to share them with the rest of us?
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.
> 
--  
Marty Modell                     e-mail: ir001264@mindspring.com 
      http://www.mindspring.com/~ir001264/Home.htm         
                  author of 
      A Professional's Guide to Systems Analysis
         Second Edition - McGraw Hill - 1996