Re: ISPs as stakeholders

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

On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, John Broomfield wrote:

> At 21:33 09/12/97 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:

> >Is it at all possible to address the issues?
> >
> >*	why should the .COM registry, nearly all of whose registrants 
> >	are in the USA, be transferred out of North America?
> >
> >*	if the .COM registry is to be moved to another jurisdiction, 
> >	is Switzerland a good choice?
> ...
> 	My guess is that NSI won't pack it's bags and jump into the sea, so
> let's have a look at two different scenarios.
> -NSI fights like crazy and publicly against having COM/NET/ORG turned over
> to CORE. If the outcoñe to this were to be that they WERE turned over to
> CORE, this would probably mean that NSF sanctioned it, so at least NSF (USG)
> would see fit. If the USG sees fit, why shouldn't you?

Ever hear of right and wrong?

> -NSI decides on amicable terms to go along and hand control of COM/NET/ORG
> over to CORE. This would most certainly mean that NSI would decide to become
> a registrar. As we're saying that this is on amicable terms, it would probably
> mean that their current database automatically gets put in, so all existing
> COM/NET/ORG continue to work as if nothing had happened.
> ...
> Give other likely scenarios where you see problems, and you too can have
> fun at
> the guessing game.

Another very likely possibility:  NSF says, "OK, we will sanction the 
transfer of com/net/org to CORE -- but only if it relocates to the 
United States."

Remember that there is a real world out there.  In that real world, 
the com/net/org registry is worth a fortune and the store/firm/geewhiz
registry's worth is anyone's guess, but nowhere near that of com/net/org.

Another very likely possibility: NSF says "NSI you can keep com/net/org
if you promise to be good little boys and set up a shared registry."

A very interesting further possibility: the USG says "CORE, you can have
firm/store/nom/gulp; NSI, you can run com/net/org for a while longer,
so long as you convert it to a shared registry; and we will allocate
further gTLDs to one or both of you in a couple of years if you do a 
good job on these."

Oh, there are lots and lots of possibilities.  The third would be better
for the Internet than either the first or the second.  What would be even
better would the controlled introduction of a number of mini-COREs.  

The Internet does not need another single point of failure.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org