RE: [wg-c] Way too late!

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

How about an agreement that we keep personal two or three way commentaries
OFF the list; and that some minor flexibility be allowed if the postings are
strictly content oriented. I understand Roeland's challenges -- business
oriented commitments do drive our availability to contribute. 

Marilyn 
-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 11:12 AM
To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Christopher Ambler'; wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-c] Way too late!


[Yes, I am burning a post since I expect to be waylaid by schedule deadlines
today. BTW, y'all might ask yourselves what you are takeing the time from,
just to be here.]

It only proves that way too many of us are spending way too many late night
hours on this, self included. I believe that the two post rule is a loose
one. Where the poster posts every day, I think it should be enforced.
However, I believe that the boundary should be a bit stretchable for those
who don't post regularly. Admittedly, I am falling into the latter catagory
lately. I will probably fall into it more as my current project heats up.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ken
> Stubbs
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 6:52 AM
> To: Christopher Ambler; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller
>
>
> i believe if you check the time of the last posting mr
> crispin made you will
> find that it was at 1:27 am thursday morning. according to my
> e-mail logs
> you posting  followed at 1:35 am
>
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
> To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller
>
>
> > This makes 3 posts by Kent today. Are we going to enforce this
> > rule, or not?
> >
> > Christopher
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
> > To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for Milton Mueller
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 10:53:21PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > > > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:57:49 -0500
> > > > From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
> > > > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting
> > > >
> > > > Craig:
> > > > A nice contribution overall. I agree strongly with
> Werner Staub's
> > > > elaboration upon,
> > > > and strengthening of, the analysis of why new TLDs are needed.
> > > >
> > > > I remain unshakeably convinced that the
> profit-non-profit issue is a
> red
> > > > herring at
> > > > this stage. Let me explain once again what the reasons are. The
> > fallacies
> > > > in the
> > > > reasoning are particularly evident in Craig's comments below.
> > > >
> > > > Craig Simon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If and when new gTLDs are added, I believe it would
> be wiser to
> start
> > > > > with non-profit/cost-recovery gTLDs rather than
> proprietary gTLDs.
> > > > > The underlying presumption is that if either approach is later
> deemed
> > to be
> > > > > mistaken, it would be easier to parcel off a
> non-profit registry
> (say,
> > by
> > > > > auction) rather than to take the registry from a
> private owner. In
> > short,
> > > > the
> > > > > public resource blunder would be easier to fix than
> the proprietary
> > blunder.
> > > >
> > > > First, let me challenge the notion that adding exclusively
> administered
> > > > TLDs poses
> > > > some kind of enormous risk to the operation of the
> Internet, a risk so
> > > > threatening
> > > > that special measures must be taken to preserve options
> to "take back"
> > > > delegations.
> > >
> > > It's actually more that the *combination* of "for-profit" and
> "exclusively
> > > administered" is the problem.  As the example of .museum
> > > demonstrates, I am quite willing to contemplate fairly exclusive
> > > arrangements, if the exclusive arrangement is with an
> entity that is
> > > non-profit,
> > >
> > > > We have been adding ccTLDs, and associated registries,
> to the root for
> > more
> > > > than ten
> > > > years. The vast majority of them are administrered as
> proprietary
> > > > registries; i.e., a
> > > > single entity is both registry and registrar and the
> delegatee has
> > effective
> > > > ownership of the zone files.
> > >
> > > But only recently have any of them been really "for-profit"...  It
> > > is, as I said, the combintation of "for-profit" and "exclusive
> > > control" that is the problem.  Note that a combination of
> > > "for-profit" and "exclusive control" is very close to the
> definition
> > > of a monopoly...
> > >
> > > > > The last four years of experience with NSI provides
> incontrovertible
> > > > proof of
> > > > > how difficult it can be to get a powerful proprietary
> registry to
> > modify
> > > > its way
> > > > > of dealing with the Internet community. Consider the
> grief that has
> > occurred
> > > > > over questions of defining norms of conduct for
> interacting with
> > registrars,
> > > > > adhering to a community-supported DRP, maintaining whois
> > accessibility, etc.
> > > >
> > > > The problems with NSI have nothing at all to do with
> its for-profit
> > > > character.
> > >
> > > Now there's a sweeping generalization.
> > >
> > > > They
> > > > have everything to do with market dominance, i.e. the
> fact that it
> > controls
> > > > 75% of
> > > > the world's domain name registrations.
> > >
> > > And there's another...
> > >
> > > In fact, that dominance would matter far far less if it were a
> > > non-profit public benefit kind of company.  If
> registrations in .com
> > > were done at cost people would be far less concerned, and
> > > furthermore, NSI would be much less concerned about losing the
> > > contract.
> > >
> > > > If you want to erode that dominance
> > > > you need
> > > > to authorize additional commercial, for profit
> registries that can
> > compete
> > > > effectively with NSI.
> > >
> > > Let's see -- you argue on the one hand that we can't *start* with
> > > just non-profits, as Craig and many other have suggested,
> because the
> > > non-profits will get so much market share in the beginning that it
> > > will be unfair to later possible for-profit registries.
> But on the
> > > other hand you argue that only for-profit registries can possible
> > > pull any market share away from NSI.
> > >
> > > Interesting.
> > >
> > > > Whether NSI was for-profit or not didn't make a bit of
> difference.
> > >
> > > Of course it did.  There is absolutely no doubt that NSI's actions
> > > have been heavily condition by the fact that it is a for-profit
> > > company.
> > >
> > > > Indeed,
> > > > does
> > > > anyone on this list besides myself has any experience
> with trying to
> > > > "modify the
> > > > behavior" or a powerful state-owned monopoly telephone
> company? These
> > entities
> > > > claimed a public service mandate but often made
> customers wait for 10
> > years
> > > > to get a
> > > > phone line. The only thing that made them jump was
> competition. NSI
> will
> > > > become less
> > > > powerful when the market for gTLDs becomes competitive. Period.
> > >
> > > But there are several ways to achieve competition.  That is the
> > > point of having competitive registrars.
> > >
> > > > Folks, the Berlin Wall fell almost exactly 10 years
> ago, and with it,
> > the
> > > > idea that
> > > > profit-motivated enterprise is an evil force to contained or
> eliminated.
> > >
> > > *Nobody* is making that claim.  Indeed, that is the whole
> motivation
> > > behind having competing registrars.  The criticism of the profit
> > > motive stems from cases when it takes priority over other social
> > > virtues.  We don't condone selling babies because it is a
> high-profit
> > > enterprise; we don't condone trafficking in human body parts; or
> > > murder for hire.  These are extreme examples, to make the point.
> > >
> > > But there is also the fact that effective competition depends on
> > > rules, rules of a much more mundane sort, having to do
> with exclusive
> > > control over resources.  Society as a whole is very cautious about
> > > granting exclusive franchises -- copyrights and patents, for
> > > example, give short term monopolies, and they are carefully
> > > rationalized in the US constitution as providing social
> benefits in
> > > spite of their exclusive character.
> > >
> > > > This is the
> > > > Internet economy, and the current level of Internet
> development is a
> > direct
> > > > product
> > > > of profit-motivated firms. It is no accident that NSI
> commercialized
> > domain
> > > > names
> > > > more successfully than any other registry.
> > >
> > > Actually, it is crystal clear that it was largely an
> accident.  NSI
> > > did absolutely nothing to market .com/.net/.org until relatively
> > > recently.  They just rode the wave created by the invention of the
> > > hypertext transfer protocol.
> > >
> > > > > Chris Ambler asks for the same (very cushy) deal that
> NSI got. I say
> > the
> > > > > Internet community should be spared a replay of this debacle.
> > > >
> > > > The only "debacle" was the delays imposed on introducing new
> competition
> > by
> > > > the Dept
> > > > of commerce and by the creation of ICANN
> > >
> > > Indeed.  If the MoU hadn't been derailed we would have had robust
> > > competition a year ago.
> > >
> > > > > I believe the choice provided by "the more feasibly
> fixed fiasco"
> > > > principle can
> > > > > expedite progress, given the paralyzing lack of
> consensus we have
> seen
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > issue of which registry model to adopt.
> > > >
> > > > No, it can't. Any approach to the transition that has
> ICANN dictating
> > > > business models
> > > > is an absurd anachronism and is not acceptable to at
> least half of
> this
> > > > working
> > > > group.
> > >
> > > I don't think that is correct.
> > >
> > > > The most feasibly fixed fiasco scenario is this:
> > > > Create shared, non-profit registries in the testbed. Create
> proprietary,
> > > > for-profit
> > > > registreies in the testbed. Create shared, for-profit
> registries in
> the
> > > > testbed. Let
> > > > CONSUMERS decide which ones they choose.
> > > >
> > > > Am I the only one on this list who wants to give
> consumers the right
> to
> > > > make the
> > > > choice for themselves?
> > >
> > > No -- that's what registrars are for -- creative
> competition at the
> > > retail level.  Running a registry database is a boring back-office
> > > operation.  NSI makes money as a registrar, not because of its
> > > sophistication as a database company.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> > > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." --
> Mark Twain
> > >
> >
> >
>