Re: ISPs as stakeholders

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Dave Crocker / IMC wrote:

> 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 actually asked about the views expressed by the seven members of
the ISPA Council, of whom I was one.
 
> >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.

Sure, Dave.

> Listen very closely:  The DNS will operate the same after the new gTLDs are
> ...

Dave, I was trying to answer your question honestly; I wasn't attempting
to put a nice gloss on our thought processes.  On the contrary, I was
trying to give a clear picture of how the discussion went.  

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

BS.  Almost all ISPs are themselves registrars.  
 
> >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.

Dave, one of your problems is that you are too logical.  "Oh that's
a load of crap but I'm not really interested" was one comment when
the issue was raised at the LINX.   After a rambling discussion the
LINX's formal decision was (19:0) not to sign.  The informal consensus
was "bollocks".
 
> >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.

You know that I know that this is true.  What I am trying to make clear
is what ISPs are concerned with: stability of the DNS.  So people rooted
through the wads of paper produced by the IAHC trying to see what the
relevance of this elaborate scheme was.  

> >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.

Any slightest possibility of saying something definite?

> >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.)  

Nope.  I have argued repeatedly that CORE is a better bet than NSI, but
that if com/net/org are going to be handed over to CORE that a reasonable
price tag should be attached.  My current notion of a reasonable price
tag is:

*	the gTLD MOU should be modified so that you don't have to 
	agree with its more unacceptable provisions before you can discuss
	them

*	the ITU, WIPO, and INTA should assume a purely advisory role

*	CORE's byzantine legal defenses get dismantled: CORE, its assets, 
	and its servers get moved into one jurisdiction.  Virginia?
	California?  Canada?  Your choice.

*	CORE open its doors to new registrars: drop the silly financial
	requirements.  

> 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.

I have been taking flak for the last month or so for being a gTLD MOU 
toady.  I get private email that complains bitterly about my selling 
out to your lot, some of it this very day.  Some people even complain 
that I am just a stand-in for Dave Crocker!  Now you complain that I 
don't know how to compromise.

Oh, it's a hard world we live in.  Time for another beer. ;-)

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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