Re: An Open Letter to the IAHC

["D. Chiodo" <djc@microwave.com>]

John, I've responded to this (and corrected your email address) in a
rational calm manner, since your post was itself mostly rational and calm,
and I actually agree with a subset of your points. I think rational calm
discussion might actually contribute to progress, as opposed to threats
and screaming and flaming. 

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, John Palmer wrote:

> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 96 13:05:50 EST
> From: John Palmer <jp@PalmerOwns.The.Earth>
> To: iahc-discuss@iahc.org
> Subject: An Open Letter to the IAHC
> 
> An open letter to the IAHC:
> 
> OK - I have some time this Sunday morning, so I am going to quiz
> you on how in the hell this will work.
> 
> WHY would anyone want to be a registry when there is NO INCENTIVE?
> 
> How does a registry make any money when it doesnt own a particular
> resource to sell??
> 
> For instance, lets say that I own the rights to a cool gTLD, such
> as .XYZ. People who want a domain in that gTLD come to me and I
> charge them $50 per year. They CANNOT GET a 2LD under .XYZ anywhere 
> else. Bottom line: I have a commodity that I can sell.

I see why they are trying to do this, but also agree that it makes no
sense. Whoever is actually running the nameserver for the TLD should be
making the decisions about how zones within it are delegated or
registered, perhaps subject to some sanity checks.

> Now, if someone else can also register people in .XYZ (maybe
> thousands of registries), how do I make any money - in fact, 
> how does anyone make any money?? 
>
> If you have owners, then someone is responsible, ultimatly
> for making sure all of the name servers are in place (and that
> there are resources [ie: $$$] for running nameservers and WHOIS
> databases). They subcontract or join a registry guild and offer
> their gTLD's for shared registration. 

Yes, there is nothing to stop cooperative agreements like this. Thats been
my point all along that there cannot be multiple points of control for a
zone, including the root. 

> Otherwise, no one is guaranteed any $$$ and there is no incentive
> for anyone to work hard at all. MORE IMPORTANTLY, we still end up
> with no accountability for keeping the resources stable for a gTLD.
> No incentive == No accountability.

Well, no one is ever guaranteed any money. But exclusive control of a
resource certainly has more potential than shared control. 

> Someone please explain why anyone would want to volunteer to 
> become a registry when they have no lock on a source of income because
> they dont have exclusive rights to own a gTLD property. 
> 
> Analogy: I am Disney. I develope a piece of intellectual property
> (for instance _THE LION KING_). Now, if the law allowed any tom,
> dick or harry to duplicate the movie and sell them, then how is
> Disney going to make any money off of the property that they develop??
> Disney, when coming up with _THE LION KING_, did it on a FIRST COME,
> FIRST SERVE basis - that is - they came up with the idea before 
> anyone else, developed their product and then marketed and sold it. 

About the only thing I can say to this is that there is a lot more work
and developement to write a unique story and produce a unique movie from
it, that there is to pick out a string of letters. 

The cost of operating DNS server and registration software would be
comparable to the cost of movie cameras and equipment - they enable you to
make a movie, but dont automatically give you the rights to any particular
movie (or title).

> I came up with USA and EARTH first, I developed them and marketed
> them. 
> 
> Why is it any different from Disney and _THE LION KING_?
> 
> Disney, by creating _THE LION KING_ and by defending its 
> intellectual property rights, does not in any way shape or form
> stifle or hinder creativity in the motion picture industry. Anyone
> else can come up with other ideas and make movies out of them. 
> It only seems reasonable that the restriction be in place that NO ONE
> ELSE can, without permission, infringe on Disney's intellectual 
> property rights.

There is a slight difference between the copyright of a story and
trademark of a title, than there is in a unique network identifier string. 

> That means - if you want to use their idea somewhere, ask their
> permission. Pay whatever they ask. Or, if they say NO, live with it. 
> 
> AGN, by creating USA and EARTH, and by defending its intellectual
> property rights, does not in any way shape or form, stifle or hinder
> the DNS or the internet. Anyone else can come up with other gTLDs and 
> develope their gTLD properties. It only seems reasonable that the
> restrictions be in place that NO ONE ELSE can, without permission,
> infringe on AGN's intellectual property rights.

Except these arent "intellectual property rights". They are a string of
letters that is used as a network identifier, and they should not
automatically be expected to have the same force as a trademark, other
than that they are unique within the DNS. No one else could use them in
the Internet DNS, becuase the official root of the Internet DNS does not
delegate that authority. _This_ is the reason your zones, and Jim's _are_
currently illegitimate - becuase the official root NS does not delegate
them to you. obviously this doesnt keep you, or anyone else from operating
their own root (or TLD) servers, without such delegation, but that fact
that 99.95 of the Internet will never see them makes them fairly
pointless. 

And you knew this was coming, but technically, while you may have
'created' these names in your own servers, and 'registered' them with one
or more of the unofficial 'root' nameservers, you havent actually created
them, since no official procedure has been put into place to do so.

If/when an official procedure is implemented, and if/when you are the
first one to properly claim any TLD (including EARTH or USA) within the
bounds of that process, then I will strongly support your right to
exclusively provide and control DNS service for that zone, and decide what
entries do or do not get put into it, just as I currently support that the
IANA currently has exclusive right to control DNS service for the root.

> That means - if you want to register a domain in USA and EARTH, ask
> AGN's permission. Pay whatever they ask. Or if they say NO, live
> with it. 
> 
> Now, AGN cannot charge $2500/yr for a domain - why? Because ANY
> one can own a gTLD and the end user will have an UNLIMITED number 
> of options out there. This is called FREE MARKET COMPETITION.
> It is THE ONLY ECONOMIC MODEL THAT HAS EVER WORKED.

Well, you certainly could, and if/when it was actually a legitimate domain
delegated in the legitimate root NS, and if it was a desirable enough
domain, then you might get a few registrations, and you might even decide
to do so, registering a small number of zones with a high pricetag,
instead of a large number with a small pricetag, and it would certainly be
within your rights to do so. 

I have no fear that supply and demand will not work prices out in the long
run.

> Shared Registries:
> 
> I think the idea of a network of "generic" registries which
> are able to register people into multiple gTLD's is a good idea.
> Its like the clearing and settlements system that MasterCard/Visa/
> AMEX/Discover use. 
> 
> You need:
>    1> To develope the data exchange standards for Registration
>       Action Messages (RAM's)
>    2> Allow for a method of financial settlements.
> 
> In Number 2: Someone will own a gTLD and will join the registry
> group (CORE?) and allow people to register in their gTLD. 
>       The gTLD owner allows registration in bulk for $40
>       The registry charges $50
>       CORE? gets 2% of that. ($1).
>       The registry keeps $9 and pays $40 to the gTLD owner.
>       (Prices may vary - these are just examples).
> 
> I am developing models for this proposal as the USA and EARTH 
> geograpical sub-TLD components will be HUGE and I would like to
> allow registries to register people into various geographical
> areas of these gTLD's
> 
> For instance: Perhaps some ISP in Paris would like to sign up 
> to be a registrar for Paris.FRANCE.EARTH. Or a national Italian
> ISP would like to be a registrar for ITALY.EARTH. Or a Chicago
> ISP (Hi Karl) would like to be a registrar for Chicago.Illinois.USA
> or Illinois.USA. 

While I would agree that you could do something like this for
registrations directly within the TLD itself, I tend to eye your assertion
that registrations within "italy.earth", or "paris.france.earth" would
have to work as such. Granted, if the company wishing to register those,
wanted you to do the registration work for zones within that zone, and
provide the DNS, then perhaps such a model would be appropriate. But if I
wanted to register "italy.earth", have it delegated to my server, and
register and install as many zones within it as I wanted, I would not be
sending any additional money to the TLD registrar for each such
registration. Indeed, I would probably not even consult with them about
it. I would simply register my domain within their zone, have it
delegated, and go on with my business.

> As I said, I will need to develope a shared registry system for my
> own gTLD's as they lend themselves to regional registrations. 
> 
> Depending on wether or not I consider IAHC worthy (depends on their
> draft of Dec-31), I may make my sharing code public domain. I am
> a software engineer by trade and have developed many complex systems
> such as these (including working on part of the MC/VISA settlements
> code). I am willing to help, but IAHC must respect FCFS and must 
> acknowlege that the concept of private property extends to gTLD's
>
> If not, I will continue on my own (and with other like minded 
> individuals and organizations) to develope my gTLD properties and 
> will vigoroursly defend these properties in court.
>
> I would much rather be part of the community, but will be a rebel
> if people like the IAHC aim to deprive me of the benefits of my
> hard work and investment. After all, the hard work and investment
> is an investment in the internet as a whole, not just in my future.
> 
> Closed or opened. Fragmented or unified. 

Here is where you rationality starts to fade.

The Internet is not going to let itself be fragmented, regardless of your
actions, or those of the IAHC or IANA. You may of course secede if you
wish. A secession of .1% of the Internet will adversely affect only that
.1%. It will continue to be 'unified', but will be .1% smaller.

> The ball is in your court.
> 
> John Palmer
>