ISPs as stakeholders

[Dave Crocker / IMC <dcrocker@imc.org>]

Jim,

At 05:51 PM 12/1/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>Well, my personal reaction at the time was that the issue had been made 

Supposedly, we weren't talking about your personal opinion but, rather, the
views held by many ISPs.  While it well may be that what you were really
talking about was your personal opinion, that isn't what you presented it as.

>You have to remember that my viewpoint is basically that of an ISP.
>The DNS is something that works and works very well indeed.  We were
>presented with a complicated proposal to change it.  The people who

This is a good example of exactly the problem with the views you espouse,
Jim.  They are not carefully stated and, apparently, not well well thought
out.

Listen very closely:  The DNS will operate the same after the new gTLDs are
added as before.  There are no changes being made to the operation of the
DNS.  Adding new TLDs is done all the time and does not constitute an
interesting or dangerous activity.  The only time that reliability is a
factor in such operations is when a given TLD is popular and the
administrator of that TLD screws up, as NSI did with their injudicious
operations procedures, some months ago.

The claim that "ISPs" are a major stakeholder in the gTLD MoU work is one
of those items of faith which has gone unchallenged and perhaps this is as
good a time as any to raise that challenge.  When I have asked what the ISP
stake is, I'm told "reliable DNS operations".  But since we are not
attempting to change the operation of the DNS, it is unclear what matters
of unreliability are such a big concern for ISPs.  

Although ISPs often mediate between end users and a DNS registrar, ISPs are
simply transparent agents in this process and are not otherwise affected.

>That is, people were indifferent and critical at the same time.

Jim, the fact that you don't see the logical impossibility of this
statement is really quite troubling.

>If the DNS is destabilized, ISPs will suffer.  We will get thousands

Destabilization of the DNS will be caused only by having one or more
operators of root servers run rogue and stop taking direction from IANA.
That is a matter of root management, rather than of gTLD administration.

Try again.

>> consensus has been clear.  Unwillingness to make the changes desired by one
>> person have other explanations than not wanting to correct flaws.
>
>Yes they do.  But this is also a way to trivialize disagreements.  If
>you can't answer criticisms, you attack the person making the criticism.

Your particular concerns have been answered truly ad nauseum.  That you
rejected the many such efforts by many different people does not mean that
those offering them were wrong.  There is just the smallest chance, Jim,
that it means that YOU were wrong.

>The Net is not going to die.  There are other solutions to the monopoly
>problem.

You are of course right.  Before the net dies completely, there are many
possibilities, such as direct government intervention.  I guess that is
what you would prefer to wait for, since it is clear that you otherwise
want to wait for perfection (or your image of it.)  

Yes, I know you believe otherwise, but the test of that 'otherwise' is a
willingness to compromise, Jim, and evidence of that has been sorely
lacking from your contributions.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker                                          dcrocker@imc.org
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA              info@imc.org , http://www.imc.org