RE: [wg-c] modified proposal

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

In my propsal, for a root-registry, I intended to apply those policies to
NSI as well as everyone else. Even NSI does not meet some of the operational
criteria. My point being is that they should. Our positions and proposals
should raise the bar, not much, but just enough.

My intent, with my proposal, was to define what we were actually talking
about. We had a LOT of churn just because some of us were speaking about TLD
registries and others were talking about root-level function (I will only
hint that I think that some of that was intentional, just to create a
distraction and keep up the momentum of the churn).

For the record, MHSC will never sign on to making the Internet structure a
bureaucratic institution, regardless of the purported nobility of that
cause. We have already witnessed almost 10 years of such nonsense and making
a bigger bureaucracy won't be an improvement. The old ARPAnet would be an
imprvement over some of the positions I have already read here. I hated
ARPAnet, too exclusionary.

Also, the common-good is all noble and fine, but who is going to pay for it?
As we move forward to an Internet connected reality, with eCommerce, and
eBusiness, we need a reliable and scalable internet. One that is being run
by paid workers that are accountable to someone, and can't just quit and
walk away, as volunteers are wont to do on occasion. What if half the
root-servers decided to shut down or hide behind a firewall and the other
half decided to ignore the NTIA/DOC/ICANN and added their own idea of new
TLDs? They are ALL volunteers, they can do what they please. Just look at
what happened at Postel's change-over test, half the root-servers ignored
him, the supposed god-father. Am I the only one that saw that for what it
was ... and started worrying? I don't think so.

The bottom-line is that when it comes to "how many?" and "how fast?", my
answer is really "none", until we get our collective act together". I've
made a career of process and structure issues. We don't have either. I have
proposed some, how about it?

To be honest, I was expecting a bit more out of this crowd than the weak
positions I have seen here this week-end. I was afraid that some of you were
going to publish something really substantive. What I have seen is nothing
more than what those same folks have been saying for years, with no more
foundation than what they've had for years. Mostly, speculation, ideological
drivel, and vague hand-waving. I grant you, I've been working on root
registry issues for months now, but folks ... y'all could have tried. No
wonder this issue is still unresolved.

I joined this WG in order to get some work done. I published my stuff, it
may not be 100% complete, but it's a substantive start.

'nuff said, my RAID array is calling.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Ambler
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 11:44 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] modified proposal
>
>
> The simple problem is that this position paper proposes a
> structure other than that which has been given to NSI in their
> new agreement with ICANN. It would create new registries
> that had a fundamental restriction (indeed plural - restrictions)
> placed upon them and models imposed upon them that
> NSI, in its position as registry for .com, .net, and .org
> simply does not have to follow.
>
> This is, at best, unfair, and at worst, (although, not being
> a lawyer, I rely upon the opinion of those who are)
> illegal.
>
> Let's see a proposal that takes into account the current
> state of the existing registry for non country-code TLDs,
> namely, NSI.
>
> Anything else is wishful thinking on the part of the author.
>
> Christopher
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 11:40 PM
> Subject: [wg-c] modified proposal
>
>
> >                   Position Paper on New gTLDs
>
>