Re: A long strange trip

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

Thom,

  Please read below your comments.

Thom Stark wrote:
> 
> > At 11:40 PM -0600 12/24/96, Thom Stark wrote:
> > >Y'know, one thing the IAB, ISOC and ISOC's Board ought ALL to commit to
> > >RIGHT NOW is that, when the NSI contract expires, NSI's ability to
> > >update the DNS root servers should IMMEDIATELY be revoked.
> > >
> > >This would not only end NSI's monopoly on the .com domain, but forever
> > >eliminate NSI as a registrar--something that, in my view, they richly
> > >deserve for being:
> 
> To which Dave Crocker responded:
> 
> >       How do you propose to implement this suggestion in a fashion which
> > does not also penalize all the .com/.net/org users?
> >
> >       As we keep saying, operational impact needs careful consideration.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> As at least one of the lawyers on this list has observed, the records
> which NSI has generated regarding "its" customer base are actually the
> property of the US government, specifically of the NSF.  Upon the
> expiration of its contract with the NSF, NSI will be obligated to give
> up those records to the NSF as part of the process of concluding the
> contractual relationship.
> 
> No penalty would apply to .com/etc. users who were registered and whose
> domains were being serviced as of the date NSI goes out of business as
> a registrar.  Their WHOIS records, as well as the paper trail would be
> transferred to NSF, which, in turn, could simply pass them on to the
> new registrar's group via CORE or any other intermediate which might be
> created for the purpose.  No service interruption need occur for the
> users.
> 
> Assuming that the current group of gTLDs will be shared among the newer
> registries in the same fashion that the IAHC draft has envisioned the
> newer gTLDs be shared, (i.e.--.com/etc. registrations will be made
> available through any registrar), then the only question that really
> needs to be answered about NSI's existing customer list is how it will
> be parceled out fairly among the newer registrars.  Any equitable
> scheme could work.  A possible model would be to simply sort the records
> by alphabetical order, then "deal" them out to the registrars much like
> a deck of cards, in sequential, round-robin fashion, until the entire
> "deck" has been dealt out.  Every registrar would then have "inherited"
> an almost exactly equal number of existing .com/etc. registrations in
> a demonstrably unbiased manner.
> 
> If any existing .com/etc. domain holder didn't like the registrar to
> which it had been randomly assigned, it would be free to change registrars
> at will.  There would never be a time during the entire process when any
> existing domain holder's name would fail to be routed.
> 
> Some things would inevitably fall through the cracks.  Two that spring to
> mind are those folks who submitted new .com/etc. requests in the hours
> leading up to the closure of NSI as a registrar and those who wished, for
> whatever reason, to update their records during the transition period
> between the paperwork leaving NSI and arriving at the new, randomly-
> assigned registrar.  Mechanisms would have to be developed to minimize
> the impact of the transition on these folks, but, with sufficient front-
> end planning and with sufficient beofre-the-fact advertising of the
> handoff, the number of users affected could be kept pretty small.
> 
> All the above is predicated on a whole bunch of assumptions on my part,
> of course.  Some of those include:
> 
>   1. The shared gTLD model will be a part of the final draft
> 
>   2. IAHC and, more importantly, NSF are persuaded that NSI has
>      demonstrated its unfitness to continue as a registrar.
> 
>   3. All of the newer registrars will actually want their equal
>      share of the older gTLD customers
> 
> This is all off the top of my head.  If you want greater detail, RFC-
> compliant section numbering, etc., just ask.

  I see no reason why this should not work just fine, given that your
assumptions are valid and take place.  Seems a good senerio to me.

  My only question has just come to mind in the past two days.  That is,
I amd hvaina a problem with how the IAHC is funded, staff paid, and just
where exactly the CORE comes into play and how they are funded ans staff
paid.  It has been posted that this is volentary on the part ot the IAHC
members.  Is this also true of CORE?   To me this seems very
unprofessional
method of conducting these types of affairs.  No incentive is the
reason.
I have great problems with this!  I think you can understand why...

Regards,

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Thom Stark
> 
> Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
>              finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key
> 
> (510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
> POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457

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