Re: ISPs as stakeholders

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

Jim and all,

Jim Dixon wrote:
> 
> 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.

  Indeed!  This suggestion was made nearly a year ago by Jim Fleming on
the
IAHC-Discuss list (See archives).  I personaly think it is an execelent
idea.
> 
> The Internet does not need another single point of failure.

  Very true.
> 
> --
> 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

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