Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

[werner@axone.ch (Werner Staub)]

Ross,

My response was inspired by what I learned from other "testbeds". 

One master of testbeds is the former Swiss PTT, now Swisscom, our
government-protected incumbent carrier. Whenever they wanted to 
have things their way, they would to a "test". The test would
take time (and time is always on the incumbent's side). Moreover,
sometimes even the incumbent wants to change something, e.g.
impose outrageous pricing, push some proprietary technology, 
demonstrate the supposed impossibility of competition, or, even
more diabolically, install some token competitor whose business
practises are worse than itself, so its own practises appear
in a better light or at least as "standard" practise. A testbed 
is the ideal way to do that.

Had Machiavelli lived in an era of public procurement contracts
handled by democratic states, he would have devoted an entire 
chapter to testbeds. 

That being said, I also used to believe in testbeds as a way
to promote progress and competition. Only from experience did 
I learn that paradoxically they serve inertia and the dominant
player.

Regards,

Werner



"Ross Wm. Rader" wrote:
> 
> I don't think that one can draw any conclusions from the NSI-SRS test-bed
> and the one that we are proposing here. Other than the name, I can't see any
> convergence in the dynamics.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this a bit further? The last thing I want to do is
> advocate a process like the NSI-SRS <g>
> 
> -RWR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Werner Staub <werner@axone.ch>
> To: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
> Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
> 
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Let me try: A testbed provides a meaningful demonstration of
> >  - how long and hard it is prepare, complete and evaluate the testbed
> >  - how easily a dominant player can capture and and deform it.
> >
> > But I guess the NSI shared registry testbed has already demonstrated
> > that...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Werner
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kevin J. Connolly" wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone really think that floating test TLDs that have no semantic
> > > content at all is a meaningful test of anything?  There are at least
> some
> > > potential applicants for SLD names whose interest is a function of the
> > > differentiation of the name space.  If all we're doing is creating room
> for
> > > new SLDs which are as indistinguishable from the existing sets as
> > > 800, 888, and 877 phone numbers are from each other, then the exercise
> > > has been a waste of time and we should own up to it.
> > >
> > > KJC
> > >
> > > >>> "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com> 09/14/99 11:51AM >>>
> > > Exactly - or something like .tucows - which I'm not advocating as there
> are
> > > IP issues associated with that particular name, but the point is that
> there
> > > are bazillions of gTLDs that can be used to test on without affecting
> the
> > > competitive landscape one iota. Maybe .rader would be a better example,
> or
> > > .test1, .test2 etc. Moving from the test tld to a real one can't be that
> > > difficult no matter how you slice it.
> > >
> > > {snip}
> > >
> > > **********************************************************************
> > > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
> > > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
> > > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
> > > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
> > > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> > > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
> > > munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
> > > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
> > > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
> > > **********************************************************************
> >
> > --
> > Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
> > Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland

-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland