Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all,

  We have maintained that both Shared and non-shared gTLD's or TLD
models can coexist for over three years now.  I for one am glad to see
that you are on board with this concept as expectable as well.  I was suprised
that Chris Ambler and IOD, determined that they felt that they would concede
to sharing .WEB, when Chris announced that on this IFWP list.  I understand
Chris's motive, but find it odd that he and IOD felt it necessary to make that
given their "Prior Use" and the fact that as you contend, both models certainly
can and should exist.  And yes, IBM has contacted me on several occasions
in doing some joint development and information sharing along these lines.
Last time I spoke with them personally was on October 1st in Austin in this
regard.  However I find it quite interesting in the current discussions and
debate
in this backdrop that IBM has been very quiet in this area considering their
involvement in the selection of the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board.

Food for thought?  >;)

  As I said, we have believed that such both shared and non-shared gTLD's and
TLD's can and should co-exist in the same environment.  You suggestion that
they should be "Secure" TLD's in the case of a Non-Shared TLD registry is
precisely how we envisioned such an event or situation to exist.  We have
developed our SROOTS and Interface Facility or MLPI with DNSEC around
that very concept. It works quite well and is gaining some interest in the
Internet
security arena.

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> At 03:56 PM 12/3/98 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> >This does not mean I think IOD should not have a strong case for managing
> .web,
> >but I do not think their application for operating the .web registry
> should be
> >exclusive.  Other potential registries should be able to propose for that
> TLD,
> >as well as the others, according to whatever procedure and application
> process
> >is decided appropriate.
>
> I clipped this out because I want to focus on this one issue. This is aside
> from Chris having *already* conceeded sharing the registry, in an e-mail
> which I know was sent to you. You two only have one issue as I see it. Your
> insistance that IOD start over from scratch with no acknowlegement of any
> prior history. it is for this reason that MHSC has not yet declared it's
> exact desire for a specific TLD name. Partially becasue it really doesn't
> matter tyo us which TLD we use. Unlike IOD, MHSC has not done any marketing
> of its secure registry services and has no sunk-cost investment in a
> particular TLD name. However, we have done a lot of work on the charter of
> operations for such a TLD.
>
> On the other hand, MHSC has an issue with mandating a shared registry
> structure, as the only structure possible. I know that MHSC may differ from
> the official ORSC stance on this. We don't argue against shared registries,
> what we argue against is shared registries as an exclusive model. We feel
> that this is right on up there with mandated business models. Be that as it
> may,  there is *one* major reason to allow a non-shared registry model.
> That entity is a secure TLD operating on a very restricted registry
> charter. The shared registry allows some yokel to register a SLD, with a
> secure TLD, in violation of the security charter. Such a charter could
> require the candidate SLD to pass some type of security audit. The remote
> registrar may, or may not, be qualified to perform this audit. Regardless
> of that case, it also opens up the secure TLD to possible security breaches.
>
> In the general case, we must indeed ask ourselves why we are making
> additional gTLDs. If it is simply to create additional name space then a
> shared model may work. However, if these new TLD s are to be specifically
> chartered then using remote registrars make less sense because charter
> enforcement becomes difficult at best. MHSC maintains there is room enough
> for both types of operation, non-specific shared TLD registries and
> chartered registries with specific purposes. We further maintain that the
> exact name of such a chartered TLD is irrelevent as the charter it operates
> under will soon make the TLD well known, if it is successful.
>
> Yes, there is a very real lock-in potential , especially with a
> security-chartered TLD. However, were there to be a severe problem I am
> sure that a competing TLD would arise quickly. I have reasonable
> information that IBM is also considering these things, in this way, in its
> e-commerce division. The same group that released the PKIX tool-kit.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
> e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com>rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: staff<http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com
> ___________________________________________________
> Who is John Galt?
> "Atlas Shrugged" - Ayn Rand

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208