RE: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 09:57 PM 4/6/2001, Russ Smith wrote:
>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

One more time:  ICANN does not develop technical specifications.  It can 
cite a requirement to follow one specification or another, but it does not 
create them.


>-A standard format for the output.  Currently this involves a text file

Thanks for the technical pedagogy.

This has been the topic of IETF discussions.  I am hopeful that a 
specification will yet emerge.


>output.  ICANN could have instituted a standard format for this out.

You are confusing the difference between citing/choosing a specification, 
versus having the expertise to develop one.  ICANN is not designed for 
designing technical specifications.


>If this had been done at the start of the planning for the shared registry

things were/are a tad more complicated than you are suggesting.


>-"Advanced" features such XML or non-port 43 standards.

Etc. Etc.  A collection of technical issues that need to be considered, 
specified, etc., etc.  Yes, that is what a standards body does.


>-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.

Yeah.  It's a shame that ICANN has spent so much time doing other things.

After all, it has infinite resources and wonderfully constructive 
assistance from the community.

So a trivial item like determining whois information requirements that will 
be acceptable on a global scale should not have taken this long...


>Roberts stated essentially that the WHOIS has been in
>place for a long time

This is particularly true in terms of the information carried in whois 
records. And focusing on immediate crises is generally viewed as a superior 
management style than attending to matters that might be uncomfortable, but 
otherwise have a long and stable history.

So your point is what?


>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.

Defining, building and deploying new technical specifications on the 
Internet takes a long time.


>The main point of contention with the general public is the requirement to
>show all the information about all the contacts and the owner.

Yes, that is the "information policy" reference you made earlier.  As we 
have seen from various discussions on public lists, the matter is not 
subject to quick resolution.


>What it comes down to is that if ICANN took the initiative to institute
>things like the UDRP and the Verisign deal then they should have had time to
>more on the WHOIS issue by now.

You seem to missing some basic points.  One is that the UDRP came after 
several YEARS of public discussion.  Another is that negotiating with a 
single contractor (Verisign) is rather different than negotiating with a 
community.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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