Re: Thread 1: Sharing

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>]

Christopher Ambler writes:
> The position of my company is as unchangable as it is simple: If NSI
> gets automatic approval in this procedure, then we do as well.

Until the cooperative agreement is modified or terminates no one is in
a position to do anything.  NSI "gets" nothing in the listed IAHC
procedure procedure. As soon as the cooperative agreement is modified
or terminates NSI gets no special treatment.

It appears that you believe that the fact that NSI is in a
"privileged" position because of an accident of history, and possesses
(for a short time to come) exclusive rights to register within a small
number of top level domains, that it is "fair" for the IAHC to grant
this to others. However, the document has stated that the IAHC feels
that for the good of the overwhelming bulk of the users of the
internet all gTLDs should be shared, including the extant ones, and
the course you propose would not further the stated ends. It would
only serve to enrich a small group of people, and the justification
appears to be that because a group had an opportunity to do something
for a time, you must get the right to do it too even if it is not in
the public interest. This may be "fair" by some definitions, but it
would it be fair to the general interests of the community? Recall
that the IAHC's orientation is towards the interests of the wider
community, and not towards assuring maximum profit for any particular
small group interested in operating registration activities.

> Anything else will be unacceptable. We feel that *all* qualified
> applicants should be allowed to participate immediately. Claims of
> scaling up are unfounded - the system will either work or it will
> not.

The statement "the system will either work or it will not" is an
extraordinarily black-and-white statement, especially given the claim
that *all* qualified applicants should be allowed immediate
participation. Many sorts of activities on their face are practical in
a group of twenty and not in a group of thousands, especially during a
critical organizing period. I would, in fact, characterize the
statement that "the system will either work or it will not" to be
fairly extreme.

> If it is not ready, then allow the new registrars to operate
> exclusively, as NSI is doing, until the system is ready and
> tested.

As I have noted, this is an argument fundamentally grounded in an odd
notion -- that because someone is performing an activity based on a
long standing contract, that others must the right to perform the same
activity even though it is desired that no one at all have the right
to perform this activity.

> Anything else is restraintive trade practices, and cannot be
> tolerated.

Restraint of trade is a very specific legal notion.  Are you certain
you wish to assert it?

> From our standpoint, we have been working for well over a year now on
> seeing this process through, and patience is now at an end.

It was understood that there was substantial community concern over
the length of the process, and that is one of the reasons that the
IAHC set a very ambitious timeline for the completion of its
work. Thus far, it has met its self imposed deadlines (although it has
adjusted one or two by a week here and there). There appears to be
some new urgency to the tone of your remarks, however. Are you unhappy
with the way in which the IAHC has been meeting its deadlines, or with
the schedule?


Perry
Speaking as always for myself, and not for the IAHC in an official capacity.