Re: Johnson, Farber, Maher and Cochetti

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

Valdis and all,

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 1998 01:03:17 BST, Jeff Williams said:
> > 1.) Microsoft, which you use as a example, is already under scrutiny, as you
> > should already know.  The antitrust laws in place would certainly not allow for
> > this to happen even if it was another company besides Microsoft, such as AOL.
>
> Oh? Is there currently a policy at the .COM registry that requires them
> to report all sales of over 10,000 domains, similar to the reporting
> requirements for cash transactions?

  I couldn't say that there was actually.  But this is besides the point is made
in #1.  Not relevant at all. Antitrust (Sherman act) will not allow for a monopoly
of this nature to exist extant.  In addition, thought I didn't mention this, another

reason would be that if Microcoft or some other large company were to
but up a controlling interest in the DN's in a particular Name Space they would
also be in violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act as well.  Please review
that bill for more detail.  Not only that, the fact that if Microsoft and/or some
other company decided to make an attempt at this it would be detected fairly
quickly, as has already been done in two cases that Ellen Roney posted
some time earlier, and the whistle blown on them at NSI.  Those DN's were
put back into the pool under court order.

>
>
> Go back and look at what *YEAR* the Microsoft investigation started.
> Then tell me that they couldn't buy themselves a majority, force a vote,
> win it, and enjoy the fruits - remember that even if they get their
> wrists slapped 13 years later, that's 13 years of income...

  Also look at what the last settlement cost microsoft in the last go around with
the DOJ.  You will find that they paid a hefty sum, I believe it was around
$250M.  Their legal fees were reported to be around $750M in addition.

>
>
> > 2.)  There are far to many ISP's and IAP's, large, small and medium in size to
> >       allow for this to happen.
>
> Actually, this makes it *easier*.  Due to the fact that many proxy
> votes are distributed essentially randomly, there's a rule of thumb
> that states that you only need about 7-8 percent of the outstanding
> stock in a widely traded company to effectively control it - a far
> cry from the 51% guaranteed win, but a lot cheaper if you're willing
> to settle for 95%...

  What you are referring to here is a levraged buy out.  I have participated in
several of these myself.  In the end you still do not control the company or
even the majority of it's assets, in this case we are not even refrencing a
company in terms of asset control.  rather we are talking about a Name
Space, namely .COM.  My point, which you either missed or didn't THINK
much on, was that the ISP's and IAP's of the globe would not allow for this
to occur simply in that it would be in their best interests to block such
an attempt.

>
>
> > 3.) With .NET still available and not mentioned in you example a huge portion
> >       of the existing Name Space will remain basically untouched.
>
> What a WONDERFUL idea?  I could probably hijack both the .NET and
> .ORG domains in a 'one domain one vote' world for a LOT less investment.
> Or maybe I could get a package deal on .COM/.NET/.ORG all at once....

  If you think you can engineer this, take your best shot.  You are now obviscating
your original premise for your argument however.  Not to mention being incorrect.
This could never occur for the reasons I stated originally, and have now expanded
upon.

>
>
> > 4.) The now supposed shortage of IPv4 address space would also cause
> >      a huge problem to this scenario that you propose to allow for such an
> >      action to occur.
>
> Umm, the rquirement is that you have 2 nameservers for the domain.
> And the root nameservers *already* prove you can fit 1M domains on
> one DNS server.  Remember, we're not trying to create usable domains,
> we're trying to create a LOT of domains so we get a LOT of policy votes.

  I understand your argument here.  But if those domains are not usable or
currently in use they are not voteable.  That simple.

>
>
> Shortage of IP addresses? Hell, I've probably got more addresses in use
> here in my basement than it would take to seize policy control in
> a "one domain one vote" world.....

  Please explain.  How do you figure this?

>
>
> >> What the Hunt brothers did to the silver market should be a warning lesson.
> >  It was and is.  They failed!  They lost nearly $1b
>
> Yes.  However, (a) they came VERY close to suceeding, and (b) there
> was a lot of collateral damage.

  They never stood a chance.  They knew it than.  Buckey Hunt, whom I know
very well brainstormed the idea.  James and Lamar, Buckey's brothers, had a
significant stake in silver, about 5% or the total known reserves at that time.
James was against the idea from the beginning but Lamar felt that possibly
they could leverage their original 5% stake in the known silver reserves to
run up the price and than slowly sell off the excess over time.  What Buckey
failed to realize is that that scenario was never workable because the price
ran up faster than they imagined it would, so buyers were weary of the
price and held firm.  They kept cash and other investments instead.

> And remember that Bill Gates can
> lose $1B on very minor stock price fluctuations - he lost about $1.8B
> earlier this week, so dropping $150M on a project like this would be
> pretty minor.

  Well hell, we could afford to loose $150m too.  But not $1.8b.  None the less,
I am sure not going to do that on a scheme like this in that we would have
very little to gain except short term, and it would protract legal wranglings
for years to come with the DOJ amongst some 100's of civil actions.  The
cost in legal fees alone would be more than we could possibly ever gain.

>
>
> So.. would you rather live in a world where BIG-ISP.NET has cornered the
> DNS and sets the policies because it owns the votes, or in a world
> where BIG-ISP.NET comes up just a tad short because ANOTHER.ISP.NET
> thought of the same idea, and the registrars have to dig out from
> under 3 million domain applications?

  This really isn't the question to ask.  So I am not worried about it at all.  Just

like I have never been worried about Microsoft or ALO, or Worldcom, or
any other LARGE ISP/IAP of the world, because the bigger they get the better
it is for business for me on both ends.  I can't loose.

  For instance.  I bought a huge block of NSI stock when NSI went public.
Look at where it is now...   Case closed.

>
>
>                                 Valdis Kletnieks
>                                 Computer Systems Senior Engineer
>                                 Virginia Tech

 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