Re: GP, FR notice, roots, etc

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

Phil and all,

Phil Howard wrote:

> William X. Walsh writes:
>
> > >That would tend to legitimize those minimal restrictions.  Since I want to
> > >have no restrictions at all (on new gTLDs) I cannot support the GP.
> > >
> > Some restrictions MUST be in place for responsible management of the DNS
> > system, otherwise you have a fragmented Internet which defeats the ENTIRE
> > purpose of having an Internet.  The Internet was built providing access to
> > systems worldwide, and the DNS system was developed to provide a means of
> > allowing everyone access to those sites, without complication.
> >
> > A totally open system like you insist on is definitely not the answer.
>
> What restrictions must these be?  You are not alone in suggesting that
> restrictions or regulations are needed.  However, since I am unable to
> come up with any restrictions or regulations that I can see as necessary
> (I can certain come up with a lot of them that I would not want to have)
> I do not know whether the restrictions or regulations are such that I
> would be able to compromise on.  I may well decide to go ahead and accept
> some restrictions or regulations.  But with so many I could fabricate, it
> would not be worth my time to analyze all these possibilities for possible
> compromise.  I'd rather do that only on those that I need to consider.
>
> IMHO, the GP is absent any stated regulations I would consider essential.
> The GP leaves open the possibility of new regulations or restrictions that
> may well not go through the same regulatory establishment process that the
> GP itself is now going through.  I cannot accept that.

  The GP itself does NOT leave open the possibility of new regulations or
restrictions to go through any alternate regulatory body of any kind.  The
Transition section spicificaly spells this part of the process out clearly.

>
>
> > In my opinion, the ONLY problem I see with the GP is that the
> > restrictions/requirements for setting up a new Registry are way overboard.
> > Other than that it is a responsible move to a more open and more
> > Internationally managed Internet.  Seeing as this whole Internet phenomena
> > was created by the US Government, this is a big move.
>
> So what remains if you strike what you believe is overboard?
>
> > The key here and with the GP is that domain registries and registrar must
> > co-operate with one another, INSIDE a managed system that makes sure that
> > worldwide access to domain names is available in a central root system, and
> > that renegade registries that do not have the resources to properly manage
> > a TLD don't pollute the system and take advantage of a more open system.  I
>
> Would you like to try to convince me why a central root system is a good
> thing to have?  Can you define just what the resources are to properly
> manage a fledgling new gTLD?

  A central Root system is good and bad.  Good, becouse it provides a central
point of TLD managment.  Bad becouse it has some security problems and
does not leave itself open to expansion as well as a de-centralized Root
system would.  I myself prefer a de-centralized Root system.  The security
concerns can easly be worked out through imposing Regulations and requirnments
to meet a certain minimal standard.

>
>
> > agree in principle with the move of seeing a TLD as "property" to a
> > community based "stewardship" approach that requires registries to provide
> > some means of insuring the management of their TLD even if they become
> > financially insolvent (such as a bond that can cover the cost of management
> > of existing names in a TLD until the NPC can find a suitable registry to
> > delegate it to).  Requirements above that seem to me to be placing a
>
> In a free market system, if the TLD has value, and if the current management
> is failing, another is sure to quickly pick up on it (regulations limiting
> entities to one TLD might prevent that).

  The GP does not perpose to limit any TYPE of buisness entity to any
particular TLD.

>
>
> If the TLD has no value, it needs to die off.
>
> BTW, we just picked up all the customers from a small fledgling ISP that
> went under when its owned decided to "just disappear".  Several business
> were depending on his service.  Now do you believe that the government
> should place restrictions and regulations on ISPs to ensure that they
> cannot fail?

  Again the GP, does not and will not ever provide for any ISP, registry. registrar

protection against failier.

>
>
> > restriction on who can manage a new TLD to such a level that few
> > companies/organizations can meet those requirements.  A bond such as I
> > propose would keep the riffraff out as well as make it within reach of more
> > people possible manage a new TLD and do so in a responsible way that would
> > insure stability of the domain even if the registry were to cease operations.
>
> I see we do agree that the level the GP might be suggesting (as inspecific
> as it actually is) is too high.  But are we in agreement at what the level
> should be?
>
> --
> Phil Howard | ads4suck@s8p8a3m3.net no67ads8@anywhere.net w2x2y0z5@no4where.com
>   phil      | no9spam2@spam6mer.edu suck5it6@s5p6a0m2.net blow7me7@anywhere.edu
>     at      | eat9this@dumbads5.net eat7this@noplace5.edu stop1914@anywhere.com
>   milepost  | a4b3c7d1@no98ads2.org ads7suck@nowhere6.org blow3me3@lame2ads.edu
>     dot     | die7spam@nowhere3.net blow0me3@anywhere.edu no0spam5@anywhere.com
>   com       | stop7765@s1p5a0m7.org eat61me8@anyplace.net crash662@dumbads2.net
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com