Re: An Open Letter to the IAHC

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

D. Chiodo,

  Please read below your reasponses.

D. Chiodo wrote:
> 
> 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.

  I sure wish that stuff would stop. (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.

  I don't know, I think that there is some similarities as well and that
law could be written around those similarities.  
> 
> > 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.

  This could change, and very quickly, I think.  Hope not though.
> 
> 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
> >
Regards,

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