Re: [wg-c] breaking up (names) is hard to do

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 23 August 1999, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about terminating NSI at
>> a moment's notice and moving everyone into new domains.  
>
>Precisely. To paraphrase:
>---
>DoC/NSF/ICANN: Hey NSI, stop messing around and come into line or else.
>
>NSI: Or else what? You gonna cut me off? Nyaaaaahhhh!!!!
>---
>
>Blocks the game a bit, doesn't it?


Well, yes.  However, it's not necessarily our decision to remove those
people from NSI's purview.  They are, wittingly or otherwise, customers
of NSI.  It should be their decision whether or not to move their
services to another system.

If NSI behaves as many believe it will, this should be a non-issue, because
many are expecting NSI to behave in a way that would drive customers
away given an alternative.

I'm not very comfortable with the idea of ICANN contemplating such an
action.  If something like that is necessary, it is more properly
handled in the courts.  If and when it becomes necessary, it can
be done over whatever length of time is necessary to ensure continuity
for the (to-be-ex) NSI customers.  Until that time, this conversation
shouldn't be necessary.

I'd also like to point out that if we can come to an agreement for
rolling out the new TLDs, the framework for doing what you describe
will be much more solidly in place.  The sooner an agreement is 
reached, the sooner the actual implementation can begin.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org