Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Miton,

You knew that I am not a member of CORE, in spite of it you have said so.

You know that I was not a member of POC, just an observer, but you state it
anyway

You use the fact that I have worked on the design of a Shared Database
System for the registry of CORE to claim that I am a member of CORE. This
is similar to say that if you give time to the red cross you are the owner
of it. Again, you know that you are being untruthful.

You know that I have no econominc interest in the issue whatsoever, you
have already explained here that you had lied and that I am not a member of
CORE, in spite of that, you claim that I have eonomic interests.

Any other attacks... or is it time to get back in the discussion.

Javier

PS: I do have an opinion about CORE, though. I like the way CORE was
formed, and the way they have worked to create a real Shared Registry
Database. None on its members profit from it, but it is in their interest
to have the best possible registry, as it is their supplier, it has to give
good service and cannot fail. In their model the registry does not have its
own economic interests that may be contrary to those of the registrars and
the users. I like it !.

I also have an opinion on IAHC/POC. IAHC/POC members have worked to find a
stable future internet for over two years, defining plans and documents
that have been taken into account in the White Paper as reasonable
proposals. In spite of asking for public comment on every issue they have
dealt with, they they have failed to communicate in the middle of the
process, just coming out with final documents. This failiure to communicate
has been used to deprecate them (as Milton is now doing), but some fail to
understand that:

1) Documents coming out of POC have only been argued by those who wished to
make a profit out of the DNS system.

2) Nobody else has done anything similar, in amount of work, public
consultation or consistency of results.

3) The only way that has been found to try to invalidate the results is
through statements like the one I am responding to, from people who find it
easier to attack people than to discuss their ideas.

----------------

At 17:44 17/07/99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Javier SOLA wrote:
>
>> I am NOT a member of CORE.
>> I have, at no time, advocated that CORE should be the registry to run
ANY gTLD.
>> I believe that ICANN should be the one to publish a call for tender for new
>> registries. Our job is to define the policy and try to figure out what the
>> community wants. I personally believe in multiple registries, to give
>> stability to the system.
>
>The relationship between Sola and CORE/gTLD-MoU is a factual issue that
can be
>documented pretty easily.
>
>Sola played a major role in the RFP and design of the CORE database
system. See
>http://www.aui.es/core/core101.html for documentation. In that document,
dated
>8/97, Sola writes: "The actual number of registrations per day under .com
seems to
>be of 18.000 per day. We have to be able to do, at least, two to four
times that
>amount, that is, 36.000 to 72.000 per day, in order to assure that the basic
>system can last at least for two or three years."
>
>Who is the "we" in the preceding sentence?
>
>CORE was a creature of the gTLD-MoU, an alternative governance structure
created
>by the Internet Society in alliance with ITU and WIPO in 1997. Javier Sola
was
>elected to the Policy Advisory Board of the gTLD-MoU, and elected to the
Policy
>Oversight Committee (POC) of the gTLD-MoU on May 1, 1997.
>
>Kent Crispin was PAB Chair and also a POC observer, and consulted and
advised,
>along with Amadeu Abril, on Sola's CORE DB work.
>
>Please understand. There is nothing wrong with this association per se.
CORE, POC,
>
>and PAB members are legitimate participants in this working group--but
they have a
>
>distinct economic and political interest in the outcome, just as NSI or
Ambler's
>IOD do.
>
>When Kent Crispin and Javier Sola tell us that we ought to adopt the specific
>names and the shared registry model developed by CORE/gTLD-MoU, everyone
on this
>list should be aware of the fact that this is not "impartial advice."
>
>I repeat: I have no objection to adding undisputed CORE gTLDs to the root
and no
>problem with letting established CORE registrars keep their
pre-registrations in
>all of those gTLDs. But to say that the CORE gTLDs and those *only* should be
>added represents the kind of special interest pleading that this committee
must
>move beyond.
>
>--Milton Mueller
>