Re: comments on Jim's and Jeff's addenda to the gTLD MOU

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, andi payn wrote:
> 
> > I think that someone could easily get a test system set up and running well
> > within a month, and let CORE take it over and begin running it the way they
> > want to once they're incorporated and ready to go. Once they're happy with
> > it, which should be another month at most, they can start accepting
> > registrarions.
> 
> Agreed.  This is how things have been done traditionally on the Internet,
> and this is why the Internet has grown so quickly.

  Exactly.  And this is how things should continue to be done as well.
> 
> > I agree that CORE should be professionally managed, but I don't think that
> > this belongs in the gTLD-MoU. If it belongs anywhere, it's in either the
> > CORE-MoU or the CORE articles of incorporation, both of which were written
> > by iPOC and can be modified by CORE only with POC's approval, I believe.
> 
> What we are trying to do here is to collect a list of things that people
> agree upon.  Which MOU they belong in is not very important.

  I agree as well here.  One of the problems with the gTLD-MoU is
that it was not put together with the Internet community haveing
very much REAL input.  Hence it is in dire need of assistance
and revision.
> 
> Try to keep in mind that CORE does not at this moment exist.  So
> everything, just everything, is up in the air.

  Correct.
> 
> > >>>   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 main point of starting with existing software is to get things rolling
> > as soon as possible.
> 
> Precisely.  If there was no pressure of any sort, it might be better to
> design an ideal system.  And if there was no experience to draw on, we
> would have to start from scratch.  But there are many national registries
> that have been running for quite some time.  It is foolish to ignore
> their experience.  At least one of these is a shared registry, just like
> CORE, that has been running in one form or another for several years.
> That's Nominet in the UK.

  I agree.  There is no substitute for experiance, NONE!
> 
> >                     Even if nothing out there is a perfect fit, it may be
> > easier to modify existing software than to start from scratch. Hopefully,
> > the software used by Nominet or another existing registry will be either
> > usable or close enough to use as a starting point. The second reason to
> > start with existing software is, of course, that it's presumably been proven
> > through use--that is, you already know how reliable it is.
> 
> Also, people always use systems in odd ways that the system designer
> doesn't anticipate.  Real experience is invaluable.

  Sure is.  This si one of the odd things I find with some of the 
folks on POC currently judging form their comments to this list.
> 
> > >>   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.
> 
> All over the world there are usenet news machines taking hundreds of
> thousands of hits a day.  These are large, powerful, reliable machines
> using public domain software.  I don't know any news machine using
> commercial software that can outperform machines using public domain
> software.

  Welll....  I don't know about that, Jim.
> 
> We have learned to be very careful explaining this fact of life to
> our customers.  Their expensive commercial software is run into the
> ground by our news machines running free, public domain software.

  I must agree that much of the third generation public domain
software is nearly as good as Commercial software.  Reliability is
the only area that I might differ.
> 
> > >  I agree again here.  But it is possible to use public domain software
> > >in many instances.  This is no exception.
> >
> > Much of the software that drives the Internet is public domain, or at least
> > GNU- or similarly-licensed free software.
> 
> Yep.  We have the choice of at least two different futures.  In one, the
> world's registries use expensive and incompatible proprietary software
> solutions.  In the other, they use open standards and public domain
> software and systems that can communicate using standard protocols.
> 
> >  >>   10      a gTLD name server should put put on line as quickly as
> > >>           possible, preferably by 15 October
> > >> ...
> >
> > I was going to say that if this had been done differently from the
> > beginning, there would be plenty of people volunteering time and equipment
> > to make this happen. Fortunately, there still are some.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > There's no reason you can't have a server on line with test data before you
> > finish the selection process. As I pointed out before, this would be a good
> > thing. CORE, once they got organized, could spend a month or so testing and
> > tinkering with the system, and barring any serious problems or objections,
> > they could begin registering names well before the end of the year.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> > Of course there is no one set of standards used by every jurisdiction in the
> > world, but there are some basic principles that are used in most
> > jurisdictions (enough for WIPO to consider them international), and they are
> > not the principles in use in the MoU (or, for that matter, in Jim's
> > counterproposal).
> 
> Can you elaborate?
> 
> > If the use of a trademarked name by someone other than the trademark holder
> > causes confusion, or is meant to mislead, or dilutes a "strong" trademark,
> > it's a violation. There are exceptions for prior use by the non-holder, fair
> > use and/or satirical intent by the non-holder, and misuse of the trademark
> > by the trademark holder. If anyone finds these standards objectionable in
> > some way, please explain to me how.
> 
> Just for the record, could you define "strong trademark" and justify
> its special treatment?
> 
> > OK, Amadeu, did you read my proposals (the third set)? I think that what
> > we've come up so far with would be enough to alleviate the fears of hundreds
> > of people who were previously hesitant or unwilling to sign, and remember
> > that at this stage we're only a few hours and three proposals into the first
> > phase...
> 
> Yes, indeed :-)
> 
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> -----------------------------------hobbies---------------------------------
> Member of Council                                                 President
> Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 503 2265

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