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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 
> > That $9 has NOT been decided by the US gov. It's a figure that NSI pulled
> > out of its hat. It's a figure that NSF/DoC/ICANN are NOT happy about. It's a
> > figure that is being discussed upon.
> 
> I see. The Dept of Commerce did not sign a contract with NSI with that numberin it.
> DoC did not reduce the number to $9 from the initial proposal of $16.

If you can produce the reference, I will stand corrected. AFAIK the $9 is
what NSI decided on its own accord. Also, AFAIK DoC is not happy with this
figure.

> Existing new registrars are not paying that figure. Any other silly assertions
> today?
> 
> For those of you who care about facts, see the Amended Cooperative Agreement
> at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm
> See the Paragraph on "Pricing"

The part in that doc which talks about pricing is:
---begin quote
Pricing:
Commencing upon the Phase 1 deployment of the Shared Registration System,
and for the term of this agreement, NSI's prices for registry services
through the Shared Registration System in the gTLDs for which NSI now acts
as the registry, will be no more than a dollar amount per registration/year
to be specified in a further amendment reflecting NSI's costs and a reasonable
return on its investment.
This price cap will be adjusted via an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement
to reflect demonstrated changed costs of NSI arising from newly enacted
legislation, NewCo fees, inflation, regulations, standards, costs of new
litigation (including settlements and judgments) in excess of NSI's operating
plan or changes in the operation of the registry, or to fund specific
additional activities in the event such activities are reflected in an
amendment to the Cooperative Agreement. 
end quote---
I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of any amendment to the Cooperative
Agreement that states $9. References?
The document you quote states a number of nice things which just prove that
contracts are nice and juicy, but can be made a mockery of completely. As
such, FOR THE MOMENT, NSI is acting unregulated (and fighting very hard to
stay that way):
---begin quote
Term and Transition:
This agreement extends the Cooperative Agreement through September 30, 2000;
provided, however, that as the USG transitions DNS responsibilities to NewCo,
corresponding obligations under the Cooperative Agreement as amended will be
terminated and, as appropriate, covered in a contract between NSI and NewCo.

General Definition of NewCo:
For purposes of this agreement, NewCo is thenot-for-profit corporation
described in the Statement of Policy and recognized by the USG in accordance
with the provisions of the Statement of Policy for so long as the USG
continues its recognition of NewCo. 
end quote---
NSF recognized ICANN as NewCo. NSI has so far failed to accept authority
from ICANN.

---begin quote
4.By June 1, 1999, the Shared Registration System will be deployed by NSI and
available to support multiple licensed Accredited Registrars offering
registration services within the gTLDs for which NSI now acts as a registry.
(Phase 2)
end quote---
Testbed phase seems to have been extended (basically because NSI doesn't
recognize authority from ICANN, and therefore we're not moving forward).

---begin quote
NSI agrees to license the Shared Registration System protocol, associated
documentation, and reference implementation to Accredited Registrars, on
reasonable terms and conditions approved by the USG, such approval not to
be unreasonably withheld, that are designed to promote the development of
robust competition for the provisions of registrar services. 
end quote---
I believe (again if I'm wrong, please name the document that states
otherwise) that the USG has not approved the terms and conditions (including
price) that NSI is acting on in the testbed (which has been extended because
this agreement does not exist).

---begin quote
Software and Data:
Not later than 30 days after the date of this agreement, NSI shall submit
to the USG an electronic copy of all software and data generated under the
Cooperative Agreement through September 30, 1998. 
Not later than 60 days after the date of this agreement, NSI shall submit
to the USG all existing documentation for such software and data generated
through September 30, 1998. 
end quote---

Seems that the NSF *DOES* think that it is possible to give ALL the data
generated by NSI throughout the cooperative agreement to it. (contrary to
what you like to indicate).

---begin quote
If NewCo has a technical question or a need to access appropriate intellectual
property of NSI, [...] NSI shall provide such answer or access and shall not
assert any of its intellectual property rights or its desire to protect
confidentiality or security as a basis to deny such requests
end quote---

Would seem to indicate that NSF doesn't think much (if anything) of the
property rights that NSI is trying to assert.

---begin quote
NSI acknowledges that NewCo will have the authority, consistent with the
provisions of the Statement of Policy and the agreement between the USG and
NewCo, to carry out NewCo's Responsibilities.
end quote---
Need it any clearer that USG is telling NSI to accept authority from ICANN?

Now, as stated, a document is all fine and dandy. However, if you can tell
me that NSI is respecting all of these engagements and keep a straight face
while telling me so, then your acting qualities are better than Tony's.

In other words, I affirm that NSI as currently operating is most definately
*NOT* operating as a regulated entity, but quite independently. Whether that
is good or bad is another matter (personally, as evidenced by the abuses, I
think that an unregulated registry is VERY bad, a weakly regulated registry
is "only" bad, and that a registry has to be very stongly constrained,
otherwise we get the current situation).
The current situation just proves my point.

Yours, John Broomfield.