Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs

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

In the order of Outreach and understanding!  Mr. Walsh would you please give
us your rendition of history of hatred toward Mr. Fleming?  Nuff said!

JIM FLEMING wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
>
> Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>
> > IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
>
> > 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
>
> For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
> things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
> IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
> comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
> "legitimate."
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-10.htm
>
> ###
>
> From: "William X. Walsh" <william@walsh.tj>
> To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
> Date: 3/23/98 10:28pm
> Subject: Comments on Discussion Draft on Technical Management of Internet
> Domain Names
>
> Enclosed are the official comments of myself to the US Green Paper
> Proposal on Internet Domain Names.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh william@tjns.tj
> Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
> TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
> Domain Name Services, Web Hosting, and Email Services
>
> Comments on the US Green Paper on :
>
> Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses
>
> Comments are made by :
>
> William Walsh
> Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
> TJ Network Services
> william@tjns.tj
>
> I. Introduction
>
> TJ Network Services is a relatively new Domain Name Registrar, currently
> providing management of the National Top Level Domain for the country of
> Tajikistan under contract. We provide a wealth of value added domain name
> services, as well as direct registration under the .TJ nTLD, including
> World Wide Domain Name Registration under the existing Generic TLD's, and
> other national TLD's. Our main source of business is derived in the value
> added services which we package with these domain registration services.
>
> TJ Network Services was formed as a result of a long standing goal to
> provide low cost Internet Identity services that were easy to use, and
> within the budget of the many people starting up small, home based
> businesses on the Internet, and those who just wanted to have a permanent
> identity to use in conjunction with their on-line hobby presence, or other
> type of presence they are cultivating.
>
> The very premise of our service is that we feel the establishment of a
> permanent identity should be within reach of ANYONE on the internet who as
> the motivation to seek one.
>
> In light of the affects on this premise of the current proposal, we feel
> compelled to provide our own comments, and to advocate changes which would
> be in the best interest of the Internet as a whole.
>
> We have waited till today to issue our formal comments in an effort to
> review the comments and opinions of others, both formal and to various
> internet based discussion lists of which we monitor.
>
> We urge everyone on the Internet to read the document at
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm
>
> II. Summary of Comments
>
> TJ Network Services feels the goals outlined by the US Green Paper,
> Section V - Principles for a New System, are an extremely positive step
> in the right direction. We do, however, feel that there is room for
> improvement in the methodology used to implement these goals. We comment
> on these in this document.
>
> III. Time Frame for US Government Withdrawal
>
> TJ Network Services applauds the Green Papers statement regarding the
> need to balance stability issues with concerns that the US Government
> would never withdraw from oversight. We feel that the time frames listed
> should, however, be shorter, or at the very least mandated by statute, to
> insure that there be no extension of this oversight past the maximum date
> listed, September 30th, 2000.
>
> We would like to see the oversight areas spelled out more clearly, with
>
> time frames for the relinquishment of specific areas of oversight
> included.
>
> IV. Representation on the New Corporation's Board of Directors
>
> TJ Network Services feels the outline for the Board of Directors is
> positive, but we would like to see it broadened to include representative
> of the non-affiliated National TLD registrars who are not represented by
> the Regional Number Registries.
>
> Except for the comment noted above, we feel the representation is fair and
> international in scope.
>
> V. Minimum Requirements for Registries and Registrars
>
> TJ Network Services operates on what we affectionately call a "shoestring
> budget." Using Co-operative agreements we have in place with both
> domestic and foreign entities, we provide an extremely stable and broad
> base for our services. We do this on what is a VERY small budget. We are
> also aware of another organization, Monolith Internet Services, which has
> provided third and forth level domain name services with a variety of
> add-on type services, to an international community of users numbering in
> the tens of thousands. And this was done on a budget of practically
> nothing, depending on small donations from users, and from small
> sponsorship agreements. Monolith Internet Services has provided an
> excellent level of service Internationally and under incredibly high
> loads, with a VERY limited amount of resources.
>
> We see many of these requirements as a means to keep the "little guys" out
> of the market, and this is damaging to the very competitive process this
> proposal is supposed to be seeking. By placing unnecessary restrictions,
> you drive the costs of getting into the Domain Name Business up, and drive
> up the prices of services, making it hard for services to offer free, or
> low cost, alternatives to the higher priced, more commercial gTLDs.
>
> A provision should be made to give people the choice of what service they
> chose to us. There will be those Registries who will meet these
> requirements, and well exceed them. They will be able to advertise this,
> and use it as a means to promote the stability and security of their
> services. But it should not exclude an individual from selecting to do
> business with a Registry who does not meet those requirements, but can
> still provide service.
>
> We make the following proposal :
>
> Prospective Domain Registries should meet the following minimum
> requirements :
>
> 1) A Primary Domain Name Server, under the direct control of the domain
> registry, hosted on a network with at least T1 connectivity, and backup
> power supply. The level of connectivity, and other pertinent information
> should be noted on the registries publicly available website.
>
> 2) At least 2 geographically and network diverse Secondary Domain Name
> Servers, also on networks of at least T1 connectivity. This information
> should also be published as noted in #1 above.
>
> 3) A complete published set of policies and procedures as outlined in the
> Green Paper, published as noted in #1.
>
> 4) A robust Database Management System, that will maintain records of all
> transactions, and full information regarding each domain name
> registration, and it's registrants. This information should be publicly
> accessible in an easy to use and understand interface. A simplified, easy
> to use automated system should also be in place to provide for simplified
> domain name registrations, by Registrars if using the distributed
> registrar model, or for use by users if a single Registrar model is being
> used.. The level of current technology is sufficiently advanced enough to
> allow for new and update transactions to occur over a secure web
> interface, rather than the relatively insecure, and lengthy procedures
> involved in using email form based solutions.
>
> 5) Registrars should set simple requirements for Registries. Frankly,
> Registrars should be required to be little more than customer service
> stations, and provide easy and fast access to registration services
> provided to the Registrar by the Registries. Of importance to the
> Registry, is to make sure the Prospective Registrar is capable of
> providing the level of customer service which they deem appropriate for
> their TLD. Again, this is the image that will be created for the TLD, and
> it is the responsibility of the Registry to make the decision of the
> overall image they seek to present, and make the policies under this
> section and all the other sections with this premise in mind.
> Requirements for Registries, if any, should be uniform and published in
> accordance with the publication of information in the other sections.
>
> 6) Domain Name Registries should remove themselves from the Trademark
> Protection Process, and registrants should be subject to the same
> Trademark Laws as everyday citizens. Domain Name Registries should honor
> judgments and ruling made regarding trademark disputes by courts of
> "competent jurisdiction." Any further restrictions would be
> anti-competitive in nature, and place undo responsibility on the Registry
> to act as a "Policing" agency. This information should be made available
> on the Registries website, published as noted above in #1.
>
> 7) A plan to allow for continued management of their Top Level Domain
> should the registry become insolvent. This could involve a bond in an
> amount sufficient to insure that minimum services can be provided for a
> reasonable period of time, till the Registry can make permanent
> arrangements for a new management contract by a solvent registry. This is
> again just a suggestion, some TLD's may make no such provision.
> Regardless, the Registry should be mandated to make this information
> publicly available on their website in a prominent manner, published in
> accordance with #1 above.
>
> Other than as noted, no further requirements should be made for Registrars
> or Registries. This would of course be subject to review by the board
> after a reasonable period of time has elapsed and the results of such an
> open set of requirements can be evaluated more fully.
>
> VI. Summary and Conclusion
>
> As can be noted above, TJ Network Services finds itself in agreement with
> most of the points of the Green Paper, with the exception of the comments
> made in Sections II through V.
>
> We feel the market should be broaden to allow for various levels of domain
> name registration services, from the free services who cannot provide any
> service guarantees and minimal if any customer service, to the high end
> commercial registries who provide absolute security in service guarantees
> and customer services. The market in the International Internet Community
> is broad and diverse enough to provide a robust market for Registrars at
> both these levels and at all levels in between.
>
> TJ Network Services welcomes comments on our position paper, which can be
> made via email to directors@tjns.tj
>
> William Xavier Walsh william@tjns.tj
> Director, Network Operations and Technical Services (NOTS)
> TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
> Registry/Registrar for the .TJ (Tajikistan) Top Level Domain
>
> For information about TJ Network Services, please contact staff@tjns.tj
>
> For comments on this Position Paper, please email them to
> directors@tjns.tj
>
> TJ Network Services ==> Putting You in Front!
>
> ###
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
> X. Walsh
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
>
> Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
>
> > IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
>
> > 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
>
> For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
> things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
> IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
> comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
> "legitimate."
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
> --
> 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

--
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