Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

[dwmaher@ibm.net]

        In response to my question about NSI's statement that it plans to take
its 5.2 million customers elsewhere, you have:
        1. suggested I become familiar with the superroot.
        2. compared the Internet to a big Matzoh Ball
        3. said that NSI's statement was a metaphor without explaining what
for.

        You point out, correctly, that the Internet is a shared user network.
You go on to say that "It's merely proving coordination services that everyone
is collectively free to use, or not."  I assume you are referring to ICANN,
which has publicly stated that it is dependent for its success on consensus of
the Internet community. If your position is that NSI can take its customers
elsewhere, continue to register in .com,.org and .net and operate independently
of ICANN, please enlighten us on how this will work.

        re: the shared registry.
        Your opinion that things went quickly and successfully is not shared by
anyone that I know of, other than persons paid by NSI. My reference to "yellow
pages" was to the "Dot-Com Directory" - so clearly an abuse of NSI's monopoly
position that NSI withdrew the original proposal under pressure from the US
Dept of Justice and Dept of Commerce.

        re: ICANN       
        Reasonable people can differ on a few aspects of ICANN's performance to
date, but I don't see any basis for your assault on the "Bad ICANN".
        NSI, in its S-1 Registration Statement in 1997, showed a clear
understanding of the company's future in relation to administration of the
Internet:
"The lack of an appropriate organization or entity to govern the authorization
for the registration of domain names could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations.
......
 There is a risk that a failure to achieve consensus among the various groups
which are now informally administering the Internet could result in the
disruption of Internet operations, the inability of any user to communicate
with another user or otherwise utilize the Internet or the delay of
infrastructure improvements necessary to the maintenance and expansion of the
Internet."
        How can NSI take its 5.2 million customers elsewhere consistent
with its
recognition that there must be the consensus referred to above?
        David Maher

        At 08:53 AM 8/11/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: 
>
> 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