RE: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I would start at applying KISS. Or, as I like to say, KISS Occam's razor.
Part of the problem is that we've been trying to model this whole mess after
the FUBAR'd architecture that was contrived by ISI/IANA. That was a decent
first-approximation ad hoc taxonomy at the time. But it no longer serves the
purpose. We need to separate the logical from the physical and let both
achieve their natural form independently. 

The physical form is the hardware infrastructure and it is artificially
constrained. The logical form are the various entities that use and abuse
the physical layer.

On this Thanksgiving day, I don't have the time to go deeply into this but,
it appears that a slightly orthogonal view is required.

An example;
1: Business (B2B and B2C, not 2 & 3)
2: ISPs and telcos
3: Regulatory agencies and countries.
4: DNS Publishers of any stripe (not resellers)
5: Everyone else

Failing to have an agreement, I would give them all equal weight. If they
can't state their entry requirements in 3-4 sentences of legal text then it
is too complicated and should be rejected.

BTW, and IMHO, long-term success of name reselling (registrars) is limited,
as a stand-alone core business. That market is becoming highly commoditized.
They haven't hit their chasm yet, or they are about to do so. The thing to
be is a registry. But, all of these markets have been heavily toxified by
activities of the ICANN.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
|> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:42 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
|> 
|> 
|> Hi Roeland
|> 
|> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > The entire concept of separating supply and demand is bogus, IMHO.
|> > There is no instance of a pure supplier or a pure 
|> consumer, as organized
|> > entities.  This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an 
|> ISP. There are
|> > upstreams, downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, 
|> everyone else
|> > falls into this and even the leaves can have off-topology 
|> downstreams and
|> > peers.  We may look at this as a hierarchy and we may sing 
|> the hierarchy
|> > mantra, but it is really a network of networks and until 
|> we start looking
|> > at it that way we will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not 
|> hierarchies.
|> 
|> That's not really the point, Roeland.  I'm simply saying 
|> that the present
|> constituency structure sucks.  You experience in not getting 
|> a spot for
|> MHSC should confirm that.  So I was trying to analyse the 
|> situation in
|> sensible terms.  Perhaps we should take it one step at a 
|> time from the top.
|> 
|> At present there are three Supporting Organisations:
|> 
|> 1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
|> 2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
|> 3. The Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)
|> 
|> Starting with a clean slate, do you think that is the ideal 
|> structure?
|> 
|> Best regards
|> Patrick Corliss
|> 
|> 
--
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