KIS ASS
Mike Truskowski truskows at cisco.com
Mon Feb 9 03:08:12 CET 1998
Haven't we heard enough...please take this to another forum. mike > > > > > Jay, > > > > > > May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this > > > choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between > > > ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of > > > messages. > > > Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we > > > should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of > > > different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the > > > skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. > > > > > > The rest is being part of the Net. > > > The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming > > > physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national > > > and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common > > > network that unites people of different culture and language. > > > > I agree with you thinking here compleatly. But lets try to keep things in > > perspective. > > The GP is an leadership effort for just such international cooperation, not > > a government > > intervention of any kind as I read it. > > Well read it again. It's talking about USG decisions all over it. There's > NOTHING about international cooperation there. > > > The MoU is a select group self appointed from a leadership standpoint to > > carve off the Domain Name system with tossing in some 7 new gTLD's and > > planning to take over the managment of .com, .net, and .org without > > the benifit of a broad consensus even and making the entry fee of $10k to > > become a member of CORE and thereby register Domain names. This is like > > joining a "Country Club". Not a true cooperative effort. Hence the > > Department of Commerce and others have ask for the US governments help, > > and now recieved it in the form of the GP, with very broad input already. > > Have you read the requirements in the GP for being a registry? (24hour > guards, connectivity, redundant sites etc...) I'd pitch that at somewhere in > the region of $200K *at least*. And also note the subtle way that they > mention the requirements of the registrars. It's hinting at more of the > same. In comparison, the 10K joining fee of CORE is CHEAP!!! (And I've > always argued that the $10K was only to get CORE running, once it WAS up and > running, as it would be managed on cost recovery, then the amount charged to > "join" would be very low). > Note also that the GP just says that registries will treat all registrars > equally (eg: As I'm a registry holding ".com", if you want to be a registrar > of mine you will pay me $20K) > The GP is setting up lots of country clubs all around. It's taking the worse > bits and increasing them. Doing well so far. > And the MoU is *not* just a small group appointing people,the signatures are > coming from loads of different places (I haven't done a count lately but I'd > say its nearing 200 organisations). PAB membership is open to just about > all. CORE looks as if it will be re-opening membership applications. POC is > *currently* looking how to redo the setup, but even in its current form it > takes members from all types of different organisations (ISOC, IAB, IANA, > WIPO, -you all know the rest-). > The GP however is basically a document written up by Ira Magaziner and pals > with lots of lobbying from strong interests. Guess who's benefitting most > from the GP? It's NSI. CORE, under the GP would almost certainly get a TLD > and if they coulddo it well, maybe they would even be able to setup a few > different non-profit organisation (in the CORE format) and merit more than > one new TLD. NSI is written into the document in no uncertain terms. > Do you think that Kashpureff, Jay Fenello, the eDNS crowd etc... would be > able to meet the criteria? For one, allof them want to do business as > registry AND registrar, and the way that the GP is set out just hurts them. > CORE could get something, the others will get nothing. > And lets not forget that it pospones just about doing anything for a longish > period. So, it's the Status Quo for probably a year or more under that > proposal. > > > > I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that > > > at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have > > > to be made. > > > My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those > > > decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > > > We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > > > resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > > > > The MoU is is very much look upon as a private "Big Brother" method of > > gaining minority control of the Domain name system. This is painfully > > evidant in the lack of support from the majority of Internet citizens around > > the > > world and company's and orginizations as well. > > May I ask what support does the GP have? Apart from USG (yea, it's no small > thing, but it looks as if it's just Ira's baby...) > > > And being forced by and external set of policies is exactly what the MoU > > does or provides for, whithout the benifit of a truely open process. If the > > use of a democratic process, this would not be the case with respect to the > > MoU and it's subsidearies (PAB/POC/CORE). > > Huh? Could you explain the difference between the way the USG has produced > it's GP and the way the IAHC produced the gTLD-MoU? : > USG: set up an RFC, then went away and kept silent until the suddenly came > out and published a document (you don't even know WHO wrote the document. > For all we know it could have been just one person). In any case, they took > notice of the comments that they wanted to take note of and ignored those > that they wanted to ignore. Apparently they had something like 1500 > responses to the RFC. > In the case of the IAHC, there were members from ITU (representing telco's), > members from WIPO (representing the trademark group), and members appointed > from different "I" associations amongst others. A *lot* of discussion was > carried out in the open on mailing lists etc. (Have you ever seen Ira or > *any* USG official ask any questions on any mailing lists and/or enter ANY > type of debate?), and then they went away and talked amongst themselves and > came out with a document. > To be fair, I think that there is NO openess in the way the USG has created > the GP. One can argue if there was a lot or a little openess in the IAHC > process, but it takes a fool to think that the IAHC was less open. > > Yours, John Broomfield > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:33:04 MET 1998 ---------
[ tld-wg Archives ]