Re: Lack Of Credibility?

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

Andi and all,

   Just a quick note here.  It seems almost amazing that most of the
objections that you have, Andi, are what I originaly objected to
part by part when the gTLD-MoU was first posted (See archives).
In addition I also find it amazing that now, that posting of
mine is somehow forgotten.  It was an official posting or the
opinions jointly of my company and all our affiliates.  That amounts
to about 7,000 people and 382 seperate companies.  But I guess they
don't count, huh?

andi payn wrote:
> 
> Kent:
> 
> Someone pointed out that most of the accepted CORE registrars so far are
> small companies or companies without an obvious Internet interest, and that
> the large Internet companies (like AT&T, AOL, etc.) aren't represented. I
> explained a possible reason. In essence, big companies don't want to take
> any risk for such a small amount of money.
> 
> You replied that I was wrong, and that the real reason is that big companies
> don't want to do anything for such a small amount of money. OK, I'll concede
> that's true. I don't think the difference was that important, but there it
> is.
> 
> On the other hand, thanks for quantifying things. I was guessing off the top
> of my head about $1M/year for the initial registrars and $15K/year after the
> field is opened up. Your numbers, with a bit more thought behind them, are
> $500K and $10K, so I feel better about my guesses.
> 
> I don't see why the registrar restrictions should be kept in place beyond
> Day One of the system, at the latest. The only answer I've seen, which a few
> people have pointed out, is that those who've paid in their $10K early want
> to see some return. Taking your numbers, and assuming a six month delay, is
> an extra $250K each for twenty companies (who've had to guarantee a $300K
> line of credit just to play) so important that it's worth keeping out
> hundreds of companies who could help build the system?
> 
> Finally, Kent writes:
> 
> >Out of curiosity, what, besides section f, do you find objectionable
> >about the MoU?
> 
> I've gone over this before. I'll skip all of the objectionable small details
> (obviously, if I don't like principle f, I won't like section 8, which
> describes the ACPs) and mention just the biggest problems.
> 
>  I find it objectionable that POC, constituted as it is, is given sole power
> over just about everything (except that IANA and ISOC have veto power).
> 
> I find it objectionable that ITU and WIPO are given such a large stake in
> DNS despite representing nobody in the Internet community.
> 
> I find it objectionable that, according to section 5, people and
> organizations must sign the MoU to participate in PAB.
> 
> I find it objectionable that registrars, despite not having to sign the
> gTLD-MoU, are still required to operate "in all respects consistently" with
> its provisions, and with "decisions of the Policy Oversight Committee."
> 
> In addition to things which I find objectionable, there are things I find
> disturbing.
> 
> For example, the wording is very unclear in terms of whether or not all
> non-ISO TLDs are supposed to fall under POC/CORE authority. Apparently, this
> is being debated in PAB right now, although iPOC appears to assume that the
> answer is yes. If the answer is yes, it should be made explicit rather than
> vague and almost self-contradictory. If the answer is no, then I guess the
> whole structure is just one more RSC that claims ownership over seven TLDs
> (valid, according to the rules that eDNS, et al are attempting to set up,
> except that .web already belongs to someone else) and they can go compete
> with the rest of them.
> 
> Not only is the wording sometimes unclear, sometimes it's apparently stating
> the opposite of what's really meant. A few times, I've been told, after
> making some objection, that I have nothing to worry about because "that's
> not how things really work." For example, apparently, I am allowed to "opt
> out" of the objectionable portions of the MoU and sign the rest and still
> join PAB. So why doesn't it say that in the MoU? Why doesn't it say that
> somewhere in some authoritative document from IAHC/iPOC?
> 
> Is that enough? If I am allowed to join PAB by signing an "edited" version
> of the MoU, I'll do so, and you can read exactly what I object to and what I
> would like to change.

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com