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

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

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> 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.

  Well it doesn't and didn't seem that way from their own retoric and
statments made on the IAHC-Discuss list (See archives).
> 
> > 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.

  I find this a bit strange a statment.  That runnig registries is
meaningless, seems like they should not be recognized, from your wording
here.  Is that what you are implying?  I hope not.  FOr if so I am sure
the US Justice department would be very intrested in such implication
especially in light of recent other events regarding restraint of trade
cases pending.
> 
> > >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.

  Are you saying the IANA is "All pwoerful", "Omnipitant"?  I surely
hope
you are not.  And if you are implying such, from whence to you derive
this
idea?  Isn't is so that the IANA is PUBLICLY funded by U.S. Tax Payers
dollars?  I think it is.  Is it not anserable to the U.S. Commerce
department?  I believe it is.  Is not this structure of authority
exercised through the NTIA?   I believe it just might be?  And are not
these agencies answerable to the U.S. Taxpayer?   I believe that is
correct
also.  So, is not the IANA incumbant to be a much more open authority
answerable to the general U.S. public indirectly through their
Congressional
representitives?  I belive they are.  Now, is the IANA "All Powerful" or
"omnipitant" as you seem to indicate here.  I doubt that.
> 
> [...]
> 
> --
> 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

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

Wisdom:   "One who knows others is wise,
           one who knows himself is enlightened."
           Lao Tzu