[wg-c] Re: MHSC Position Paper (unavailable), and your comments

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Roeland,

Netscape Lite 4.6/Export, 04-May-99 abnormally exits when attempting to
display the contents of this html reference. If you want to fax it, my
number is 781 359 5196.

Could you (in plain text form, please) expand on how Kent's proposal is
avoidably complex and over specified?

If secondary nameservers are a solution to any technical issue other than
service interruption, but to the policy issue of which of two or more
conflicting claimants to authoritative status to select, then could you
explain why cache corruption is a non-trivial issue in the bind development
and dns operational communities?

Do you expect Paul Vixie to endorse the claim that mutual secondaries
solves the problem presented by two (or more) simultanious assertions
to authoritative nameserver status? I don't, but I could be wrong.

     "... and allowing the customers themselves to take over operation
      of the TLD registry ..."

We usually check out our ideas by their ability to scale, if that is
appropriate to the idea. At which indicies of scale (number of customers)
10x1, 10x2, 10x3, 10x4, 10x5, 10x6, 10x7, 10x8, ... does the mechanism
for cooperative registrant election of the registry take less time than
the process of selecting a successor to Jon Postel?

There are three statements in your comments on Dave's comments on Jon's
draft that I simply don't understand.

You characterize the discussion of an argued weakness of a for-profit
motivation as a corner case. The issue is whether the assumption that 
for-profit business rules of necessity lead to specific outcomes, e.g.,
"innovation".

If the assertion Jon makes isn't idealistic as Dave observes, then it
is empirical, we can find it somewhere in the existing history of this
industry. The transition from hosttables occurred during the SRI tenure
of the NIC contract. What innovation could you offer to illustrate your
comments on the error in Dave's claim that Jon's paragraphs on the
topic of for-profit registries and their probable business trajectories
is "an eyes-closed, idealistic assertion that is demonstrably false:?

Next you observe that Dave makes a blanket statement with specific
preconditions for the offered outcome. If you think Dave is employing
a rhetorical device unlike others in WG-C, you may want to read, or
re-read with attention to this nuance, the set of position papers and
their discussions.

Finally there is this statement ...

	NSI was started by academics and scientists...

In September 1991, the Data Defense Network Network Information Center
(DDN NIC) relocated from SRI International in Menlo Park, California to
Government Systems Incorporated (GSI), Chantilly, Virginia. It (name
service) transitioned from academics and scientists (SRI) to marginally
competent, but "REAL capitalists" (a sub-2nd-tier phone company is how
I remember them then).

The characterization you offer of the origins of NSI is demonstrably
false. Given the strength of your subsequent arguement, as prose at
any rate, you should have done your homework. DDN Management Bulletins
are available if you need them, as are the filings of GSI and its
successors in interest.

Since this issue (the legal history of NSI) is revisited in every set of
pleadings drafted by competent counsel for plaintifs in actions against
NSI, another place you can go to test the truth of your claim (do your
homework) is to pleadings, NSI's generic recitation or those of plaintif's
counsel.

Cheers,
Eric