Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

Hi David,

>  1.We are still waiting for a explanation
> of what NSI plans to do when
> it takes its 5.2 million customers elsewhere. You say it's a
> "metaphor".
> For what?  You suggested the superroot. If you have a further
> explanation, is it consistent with ICANN's well-thought out plan for
> a
> consensus based organization of the address, protocol and domain
> name
> functions, or does it assume the destruction of ICANN?

I did not suggest the superroot.  I suggested you look at
them to understand better how DNS works and is evolving.

I notice you're using the domain zone IBM.NET.  There are 
many of these large zones.  AOL.COM. is the largest.
COM. is also large.  There are also some legacy zones
like BITNET, FIDONET, etc., that exist.  What happens is
that such zones are important enough that means are
employed by nearly all users to effect lookups in 
those zone files.  ICANN must deal with the consequences
of its actions, as the Internet is ultimately a shared
user network, not regulated or controlled by any single
body.  It's merely providing coordination services that
everyone is collectively free to use, or not.


> 2. NSI has done everything in its power to
> block the successful
> implementation of the shared registry tests, including unreasonable
> charges for its services, an unreasonably burdensome agreement with
> the
> registrars, and the attempt, from which it was forced to back down by
> US
> government pressure, to establish a proprietary "yellow pages"
> which
> would have greatly increased its competitive 
> advantage.

I missed seeing you in the shared registry meetings.  Had you
been there, you could have seen that the converse was the case.
Things went quickly and successfully.  You might compare the
experience
with other shared registry initiatives underway and see how far 
they
have proceeded in the same timeframe.

It's not clear what "yellow pages" you are referring to. 
My
understanding is that the dot com directory is being rolled
as planned.


> 3. We all know that NSI wants to see ICANN
> fail. It is clearly in NSI's
> financial interest to bring this about. Assuming there is some
> rational
> basis for NSI's statment of taking 5.2 million customers elsewhere,
> can
> this basis be explained in some way that is consistent with the
> survival
> of ICANN, or is it simply a manoeuvre to hasten ICANN's
> failure?

No, we don't all know that.  If you recall, NSI helped bring
ICANN
about last year.  It is "clear" in fact that a successful
good ICANN is
very much in NSI's interests.  Where many people obviously
differ,
however, is what constitutes a "good ICANN." 

A Good ICANN operates completely in the open by true consensus,
sticks to its intended minimalist technical coordination functions,
comports with contemporary policy and law, is not captured by a 
faction, and is a private-sector organization.

A Bad ICANN operates in secret by fiat, functions as a common
carrier
regulatory agency, establishes discriminatory taxes, flaunts 
long-standing policies concerning the regulation of enhanced 
services, is completely captured by one faction, wraps 
itself around an rogue intergovernmental body, and devises 
schemes for intergovernmental organization to establish policies 
and elect Board members.

Hopes this helps clarify things for you.

cheers,


--tony