Re: [wg-c] A counterproposal

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I don't think it's fruitful to debate whether Javier or Kent, who FWIW are
the gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body's two observers to the POC, are
"impartial" or not; we all come to this debate with baggage.[*]  I am,
though, taken aback by Javier's assertion that "[d]ocuments coming out of
POC have only been argued by those who wished to make a profit out of the
DNS system."  Shucks -- I've criticized POC's work, and I've no such
interest.  When I was at the US government, there were a bunch of folks
there criticizing POC's work, and they had no such interest either.  On all
sides of this debate, you can find  both people who stand to make more
money if their view prevails, and people whose income will be blissfully
unaffected.

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

* Except, of course, for us academics :-)


Jon


Jon Weinberg
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
weinberg@msen.com


At 11:57 AM 7/18/99 +0200, Javier SOLA wrote:
>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
>> 
>
>
>
>
>