Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Hi Kent, You are a great guy but I am afraid you have been misled.
Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 12:57:45AM -0400, Russ Smith wrote:
> > >Let's see.  You think that less that 2 years is enough time to "fix"
> > >substantial, global infrastructure problems, particularly when ICANN has no
> > >control over the technical standards?  How unfortunate.
> >
> > The issue involves services offered by the Registry and the Registrars.
> > ICANN is the manager of the shared registry system and has agreements with
> > the Registry and the Registrars.  ICANN has the authority under these
> > agreements to set standards and requirements for the Registry and Registrar
> > to follow as it relates to WHOIS.
>
> No, this is not correct.  ICANN does not have that authority.  ICANN
> can only implement what are explicitly described in the NSI contract as
> "consensus policies", and there are a strict set of standards defining
> what "consensus policies" are.
>

When do they have the authority and when to they not.  You are way off the mark
the NSI contract with ICANN places NSI and I think you mean Versign, as a
Subcontractor.  The only and I mean ONLY contract that ICANN has to comply with is
their DoC contract that is the only right and power ICANN has and it is revocable
at the "convenience" of the USG. Maybe you mean the IANA replacment contract or
the contract with the DoC or USG.

>
> > The main issues are:
> >
> > -A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file
> > output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.
>
> Not without the consensus approval of the registrars and the registry,
> and others.
>

Wrong again according to the white papers, it is not without the consensus of the
internetstakeholders.  I have not ever heard of any concept of the consensus of
registrars and "the" registry of which there was only one at the tie of the white
papers.


>
> [...]
>
> > -What information should be in the WHOIS database.  This is more of a policy
> > issue and would take longer but ICANN was very late in starting.
>
> ICANN started on the whois issue before the Nov 1999 agreement was signed.
> (I participated in some of the discussions.)  The major issue at that
> time was precisely what data should be returned; it was a matter of
> intense negotiation with NSI, because, recall, it was NSI's RRP that uses the
> "thick registrar" model, which forces all the registrars to provide
> whois data.
>
> > In a
> > previous ICANN meeting Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
> > place for a long time and ICANN hadn't taken steps to look at the issues.
>
> Another out of context comment, impossible to evaluate.
>
> > It was, therefore, a lower priority than other this that ICANN has taken
> > action on.
>
> That is true.  ICANN has had other highly contentious matters that have
> had much more pressure behind them.
>
> > I guess you can call it global since there are registrars all over the world
> > and I guess you could call in infrastructure since it is WHOIS.  If you are
> > trying to imply that it is some kind of major technical obstacle then I,
> > unfortunately, do not understand.
>
> It is a learned skill.
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html