RE: [wg-c] Some nagging questions not on the WG-C agenda

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

Eric,

I only answer this becasue some of the questions do need to be raised.

> Behalf Of Eric Brunner
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 1999 5:22 AM
>

[snipped various off-topic and obscure references to John Calvin, Martin
Luther, and others (ie, what was the point of that Eric?)]

> A. Has the case that partition of the global DNS root into
> multiple roots
>    with inconsistent name-to-address mappings is desirable,
> or at least
>    not harmful been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Tony Rutkowski, possibly others]

Actually, yes. But, NOT with inconsistent names. Karl and I have been
talking about it. I have been working on it for many years. The question may
arise; Have any papers have been published? The answer is no, not
completely. There are MANY independent roots already extant, which have
conistant names (see www.dnso.net). We have also developed a heuristic which
will let BIND8 search through many roots and resolve them automatically. No,
the code has not been released.

> B. Has the case that ICANN lacks the capacity to make policy
> on the subject of registry operator business models been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Tony Rutkowski, Mikki Berry, possibly others]

Yes, ICANN has no authority over registries that do not sign the requisite
agreements. In fact, even those that do may not be bound due to lack of
equitable exchange. The presence of an alternate root registry may damage
the equitable exchange issue, then it may not. The subject is open to
debate. But, if one of our resident legal-beagles wants to sound off on the
subject I would be happy to take notes.

> C. Has the case that non-profits must not precede for-profits
> been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, Roeland Meyer, possibly others]

Absolutely!

> D. Has the case that for-profits are indistinguishable from
> non-profits been
>    made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, William Walsh, Christopher
> Ambler, possibly
>     others]

Absolutely!

> E. Has the case that ICANN lacks the capacity to make policy
> on the subject
>    of registry architecture been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Tony Rutkowski, Mikki Berry, possibly others]

Not only has it been made, but it is self-evident.

> F. Has the case that shared registry systems must not precede
> unified registry
>    systems been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Roeland Meyer, Craig Simon, possibly others]

Also self-evident. One can not have a shared registry without first
developing a monolithic registry since the SRS features are an add-on to
exuisting registry code.

> G. Has the case that market policy must precede other
> policies been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, Roeland Meyer, possibly others]

There are no other valid policies. Valid, in this case, means a policy that
is binding and the only binding factors are market forces, in the absence of
relevent law.

> H. Has the case that for-profits created by non-profits must
> not precede
>    independently created for-profits been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, Roeland Meyer, possibly others]

No, because there is no such case.

> I. Has the case that lock-in can not exist been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, William Walsh, possibly others]

No. The current proof is incomplete. It is arguable that the issue of
lock-in may be irrelevant in some contexts.

> J. Has the case that conversion from a non-profit to a
> for-profit is not an
>    acceptable mechanism to create for-profit registry
> operators been made?
>
>    [Advocates:  Christopher Ambler, possibly others]

Yes, and this is also self-evident.

> K. Has the case that non-consensus requires adoption of a
> specific proposal
>    been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Milton Meuller, Christopher Ambler, Mark
> Langston, William
>     Walsh, Kathryn Vestal, possibly others]


No.

> L. Has the case that the set of least concern common to
> Position Papers A,
>    C, D, and E is of no utility been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Identical with Question K, above]
>
> M. Has the case that registry data is property been made?
>
>    [Advocates:  Christopher Ambler, Roeland Meyer, possibly others]

Current law, all data is property of someone. It is FACTS that are at issue.

> N. Has the case that the privatization course of the US
> Colored Papers is
>    more beneficial and simpler to implement than the public
> trust course
>    of the IAHC gTLD-MoU been made?
>
>    [Advocates: Ira Magaziner (not a WG-C member), possibly others]

HEH! What have you been smoking in your peace-pipe?