Re: War of Internet Governance: 1995 - ????

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 12:29:47PM -0500, Jay@Iperdome.com wrote:
> 
> At 01:25 PM 11/10/97 -0500, Bob Helfant wrote:
> >The models are inherently at odds.  I suggested a model that allowed shared
> >TLDs for those Registrars and customers who felt most comfortable that way
> >and TLDs run by single companies for Registars and customers who wanted to
> >go that route at the MoU signing in Geneva, as well as to NSI a few weeks
> >later.  I told the IAHC/iPOC that allowing non-shared registries would
> >possibly prove their contention that this is not what people want.
> >Experience tells me us all that diferent people want different things and
> >there is no need to force one view on people.  When that is done, it
> >creates an oppressed group and oppression creates dissention, etc...  Maybe
> >the IAHC felt it would weaken their position to embrace both camps.  For
> >whatever reason, they didn't take my suggestion for world peace.  
> 
> Bob,
> 
> You were right.  Of course, back then, the IAHC still had dreams
> of global dominion over root.  Now that they have backed away from
> that claim, 

The IAHC never expressed "dreams of global dominion over root".  The
ISO TLDs were clearly never at issue, for example, nor were .gov,
.mil, and .edu.  The "dream of global dominion" is a propaganda ploy
by IAHC oponents. 

> your original approach is the only rational solution
> to the current situation.

Bob's approach suffers from the fact that there is no practical way to
implement it, because of crucial missing pieces.  What is missing is
any mechanism to assign legitimacy to one monopoly registrar over
another.  .per, for example, is the 3 letter abbreviation for Peru. 
If the government of Peru made a claim for that name, perhaps they
should get it.  Without any *policy* defined the fact that you have 
running registries is meaningless.

> >Perhaps
> >if eDNS was better presented, with similar support as CORE now has, it will
> >be brought in as an parallel alternative to CORE for Registrars and
> >registrants with a first use protection on the TLDs to get it rolling and
> >mutual agreement before any new ones are added.
> 
> eDNS was a response to the IAHC final draft.  Now that the IAHC has 
> redefined their role to that of a super-registrar, eDNS is no longer
> required for other free-market TLDs (like .per) to be entered directly 
> under root!  As we've argued all along, we have as much right for our 
> TLDs to be added as the so called IAHC does, if not more.

You can argue all you like.  You don't have IANA's signature on any 
document, unlike the IAHC, nor were you appointed by the IANA to come up 
with a solution, like IAHC was.  If you want to get a policy defined you 
are going to have to get that policy recognized by IANA.

[...]

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html