Re: Our consensus doesn't decide anything

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

Steve,

  Please read below your comments

Steve Peterson wrote:
> 
> Regarding the push for consensus on the list...
> 
> The consensus that's important is that of the IAHC members, not members of
> this list.  We have the opportunity to give feedback on the proposal, not
> make changes to it.  This list is one of many sources of feedback for the
> IAHC members.

  Absolutely correct here Steve.  This list is only a mirror to what 
may or may not be a broad spectrum of opinion that is out there
on the net both from the public and commercial intrests.  It does
appear that there is a pretty god cross section here.  
> 
> It's impossible for some to do, but I'm willing to trust that the IAHC
> members will produce a final document that serves the users of the domain
> name system.  I believe the current document largely does so.

  Trust is a very rare commidity in this world, always has been.  I am
non the less hopefull.  It is clear however to me form several other
sources other than this list that the current Dec 19 draft does not
serve the majority of the users in it's present form for several of the
reasons that have been put forth on this list.
> 
> >From the end-user standpoint, the only area of controversy that I believe
> still exists is that of the 60 day waiting period.  While I have an opinion
> on how that issue should be resolved I don't think deciding either way
> materially changes the proposal.

  Well I don't know what you have been reading but it is clearly not
from
this list.  There seem to be four areas of serious contention. 1.) The
amount of the registration fee. 2.) The lottery selection process.
3.) The 60 day waiting period. 4.) A totaly shared model.
> 
> Operators of experimental registries (started in many cases with visions of
> NSI-like profits) are trying every argument they can muster to get monopoly
> gTLDs, but haven't given compelling reasons why it's in the best interests
> of the users.  Their arguments include:  technically impossible
> (disproven), threats of suits (but no actual suits), [Bill Manning | Jon
> Postel] promised us we could have one if we were patient (probably not), US
> government will quash it (not likely), no one will do it if there's no
> profit in it (maybe no profit, but hasn't stopped the 800/888 registry from
> working).

  Again you have some flaws in your logic here.  First, it has not been
proven
that a shared model will work, to date.  Second, the 800/888 registry is
not
a representitive sample in any way.

  As to the suits situation, I fear that that will be inevitable at some 
point.  But no earlier than after the final draft is put forth, and even
than some time after that.
> --
> Steve Peterson                                    Reality Interactive, Inc.
> stevep@ry.com
> --
> Check out http://www.realtools.com for info on CD-ROM training for ISO 9000,
> QS-9000 and ISO 14000.
> --

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