Re: addendum to the gTLD MOU: phase 1: building a list

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

AMadeu,

Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> 
> Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
>   On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
>   > > Anyone care to work on a standard addendum to the gTLD MOU, one which
>   > > would enable a few hundred more organizations to sign it?
> 
>   Why don't you do that?  Why doesn't everyone do that?
> 
>   I would suggest
> 
> OK let's do that.
> 
>   1       the financial barriers to CORE membership should be low
> 
> This not a matter for gTLD-MoU, even not for CORE-MoU. The requirements weret in
> the application form. And they are low, Jim. But don't send 25 mails answering
> that point: we both would easily agree that they could be lower, and that they
> should be still lower.

  If it is not a matter for the gTLD-MoU or CORE-MoU, than why is ti
part of
teh requirnment to become a registrar and in the MoU document?
> 
>   2       CORE should begin operations with a large number of registrars,
>           hundreds if at all possible
> 
> Yeah, everyody being forced to be registrar... Come on THE VAST MAJORITY OF
> NON-APPLICANTS will stay home NOT because the requirementsts are dilt to meet,
> but
> simplysinmply becaus they are interested in this business. Bm involved n the iet
> or not. Do you really believe that, if let's say Microsoft or General Motors do
> not become registrars is because they cna get a credit line????.

  Not a valid argument.  Jim is compleatly correct.  
> 
>   3       CORE should begin operations as soon as possible
> 
> There we agree. But your move could only lead to stop current selection process
> and start everything form scratch is quite inconsistent with this goal,as far as
> I can see.

  Maybe it isn't part of the "Goals" but it should be.  Possibly
stopping
the process is a good idea and starting all over again.
> 
>   4       CORE should be professionally managed
> 
> This is exactly the kind of  provision which inclusion in a
> basic,onstitutional-like doc as the gTLD-MoU is essential. I'll ask form
> tomorrow that the Maastricht Treaty be reformed to provide that custom officers
> must be highly-qualified professionals speaking at least seven languages.

  Your sarcasim does not strengthen your argument here a bit.  It only
points
to the fact that you and most members of POC/PAB have very little
intrest in
getting other points of view that have some relevance to the structure
problems that are glaring to nearly everybody whom has read the
gTLD-MoU.
> 
> Jim, this is an OPERATIONAL issue that has no place in gTLD-MoU. Nor in any
> other doc. How do you enforce such a provision? What do you mean by
> "professional"?

   If you don't know what a professional is, than you really should
not be involved at this level of discussion.  I believe you do
know however.
> 
>   5       CORE should run the gTLD registry itself, the registry should
>           not be contracted out
> 
> Yes, and we will prevent General Motors  from buying or subcontracting outside
> its conglomerate.

  This is not even a relevent comment.  General Motors is a publicaly
held company.  The gTLD-MoU is not even a company.  Get real will ya!

> 
>   6       if at all possible, existing shared registry software should
>           be used in CORE's operations
> 
> "Existing shared registry"?? Now you sound funny. Are you against progress? Has
> the software industry reached that point of maturity where no improvement is
> needed, convenient, possible? This is eften known as the beginning of
> obsolescence.
> 
> [I don't have any good reason aginst using existing software. But it cannot be a
> religious dogma. And I can't see this provision bringing "hundreds" of
> signatories to the gTLD-MoU rakns. Unless I had mmissed the formation of a large
> Coalition for the Peservationof Software Tradition ;-) ]
> 
>   7       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use open standards
> 
> CORE should be encouraged to use reliable software. Use of often standards is
> indeed desirable, to the extent it  is possible and never to the expesnes of
> quality of service.

  I agree.  But that can and should be accomplished within the open
standards method.
> 
>   8       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use public domain software
> 
> Public domain db that large, powerful and reliable? Well, if they exist.... But
> again fitting this is a
> second order choice, after service quality.

  I agree again here.  But it is possible to use public domain software
in many instances.  This is no exception.
> 
>   9       CORE should be strongly encouraged to cooperate with other
>           registries
> 
> Oh, and if they don't want to cooperate, we send Perry, Bob Allisat and me to
> force them, nicht
> wahr? But wait, perhaps you have got a call from NSI or ES-NIC....

  I don't understand this comment at all.  It has no relevance what
so ever.
> 
> Come on, make a little effort and you'll get the name you ar looking for when
> writing all the previous items: I help you. It has seven letters.
> 
>   10      a gTLD name server should put put on line as quickly as
>           possible, preferably by 15 October
> 
> Perfect, before the selection period ends. Or still better, before you convince
> us to redo the whole thing. Any idea where could we locate this server?

  Yea!  I would be happy to provide the server.  There is one problem
solved.
> 
>   11      a good understanding of some aspect of Internet operations
>           should be prerequisite to having a vote on the POC (that is,
>           if you are going to tell people how do do things, you should
>           know what you are talking about)
> 
> Ooops. I DON'T vote on iPOC.. Add that some good understanding on what to put on
> a MoU should
> also be a prerequisite. The P of POC stands for policy, if you don't mind.
> Techcnical advice can
> be contracted outside. Policy sensiubility is more difficult to find.

  Contracting the technical aspects of this should not be done.
> 
>   12      non-voting, advisory seats on the POC should be open to
>           representatives of various communities affected by the
>           Internet
> 
> Wholly agreed, but replace Internet by DNS. gTLD-MoU is not about governing
> Internet. It is adding a new DNS management model.

  Again not relevent to Jims suggestion here.
> 
>   13      the ITU and WIPO should immediately lose any votes on the POC
> 
> I note you say votes, not presence. I agree.
> 
>   14      domain names are addresses
> 
> Yes, and the millions of people who may think otherwise should be reeducated .
> Period. If everybody could agree that they are ONLY addresses we would not be
> discussing all this.
> 
>   15      the rights of trademark holders should be recognized, but only
>           in cases where there is a clear attempt by a domain name
>           holder to pass himself off as a trademark holder
> 
> I'd could devise more precise legal terms ;-) I notice you are not bothered
> about reverse hijacking, or other ways of pirating htat occur.
> 
>   16      the Internet community should recognize the contributions of
>           the members of the IAHC and the iPOC
> 
> And PAB. And registrars. And maillist contributors. And fierce opponents. But
> not as an addendum ot a MoU, Jim. Let's be serious [...]
> 
> Apart from building Nominet II and promoting some rather day-to-day operational
> issues as the
> Ground Norms for Internet Governance Evolution, do you have any other
> suggestion?

  I do.  I think you should resign.  Or learn english better.
> 
> I translate my mail: I'm not saying that any of your proposals is nonsense. Most
> are not quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that I CAN'T BELIEVE that the
> thousands of people you claim are wihing to enter the system but are prevented
> by the current content of gTLD-MoU would be much impressed by these amendments.
> And that many of them would simply read ridiculous in a MoU, no matter how sound
> they are.
> 
> The road may be the right one. The examples are not. Making policy is more
> difficult than
> cirticizing somebody else's efforts. I encourage you to provide a better list
> 
> Amadeu, speaking only for himself.

  Oh yes of course, yourself!  I see.

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