Re: [wg-c] reposted for Richard S. Campbell

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Leaving aside the snideness (which I must say makes
WG-C -- and DNS politics generally -- rather tiresome)
I perceive your agrument to boil down to: "I see no utility to such an idea."

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 10:05:45AM -0500, Harold Feld wrote:
> > Jonathan Weinberg (for Richard S. Campbell) wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, there are a lot of weaknesses in this idea, not the least of which is
> > > the actual definition of bank, and who would define it.
> >
> > A number of people have raised this issue for "chartered" TLDs.
>
> Yes, since mid 1996.
>

And therefore everything worth being said has been said?
And therefore there is no more reason for debate?

Having also particpated in this debate since 1996, I am fully
aware of objections raised.  I was under the obvious misimpression that
this working group represented a forum wherein folks new to the debate and old
to the debate would discuss and debate (hopefully in a more civilized fashion
than in the past) and hopefully reach some sort of practical consensus.
Have we all learned *nothing* in the last three years?  At the least, having
fought
and beld for three years to reach this point, where there is an actual process and

a mechanism with authority to act, could we not actually try to get some
productive
work done.

I offered a basic position of mine.  If it bores you, Kent, move on.
If you wish to restate your own position, than please do so with the
respect which professionals show one another in policy debates.
For one thing, you will find you sway more undecideds.

>
> > Might I suggest that preserving the character of a chartered TLD is a
> > value-added service that a registry will want to maintain on its own.
>
> That is, you could repeat one of the suggestions that has been made
> many times in the past...
>

And which I have not seen adequately refuted.  Hence, in a forum where
I hope to see some productive discussion and ultimate consensus on
action, I repeat them.

>
> > For example, if I maintain ".cpa", I will market it as a convenience
> > for folks looking for (or looking to be identified as) CPAs or
> > somehow CPA-related.
>
> In general there is no reason that the registry would be adding this
> "value-added service", and in fact, in most cases it would be desirable
> to separate those functions.

That is to say *you* don't see any reason a registry will add
this service.  Others might.

To take one example from the real world, some ISPs and ecommerce
sites make money selling personal information collected from customers.
Others make money by promising *not* to sell personal information so
collected.

Put another way Kent, if you're so smart on what "the market"
wants, why ain't you rich?
I don't claim to know what people or businesses want or need.  If I did,
I'd be rich.  Thats why I want to let other people decide.  Even if I can't
get rich, I can at least use the services they develop.

What would have happened if, in 1990, we decided that the primary use
for the Internet was email and FTP and that the ability to move graphic
files was not only a waste of time, but potentially destabilizing to the network?
Worse, it created the potential for theft of intelectual property?  Where would we
be
now?

[Of course, it is worth noting that the increase in traffic *did*
jeopardize net stability, and it *did* create tremendous opportunities
for theft of intellectual property.  But the social and economic gains of allowing
the Internet
to flourish and grow despite these issues turn out to have outweighed the harm.]


> To examine the .cpa example in more
> detail:
>
> CPA is a us-centric term, and it is American Institute of Certified
> Public Accountants (AICPA) that grants CPA certification.

I do not argue with this US centrification.  So what?  Let some
other clever fellow come up with the French or Saudi equivalent and
make his or her pile that way.  I simply chose ".cpa" as an example
someone else had suggested of a potential chartered TLD.
It seemed specific enough, with no known claimants or controversies,
to be worth offering as an example.


>  It is the
> only entity so entitled, and it there are legal constraints that prevent
> someone from using the term "CPA" if they are not certified.  Note that
> the AICPA has a total monopoly on the granting of CPA certificates.
>

No problem so far.

> Therefore, it is the AICPA that needs to run the registry -- it already
> has all the information on the applicants, and can identify them with
> certainty.

This leap of logic makes no sense.  Certainly they'd be a good
candidate, and would probably want to run it, but this does not
logically make them the only candidate.  I cannot put MD after
my name as a credential, but this doesn't mean that only a doctor
can run the ".md" registry.

Besides, as I said, the ".cpa" was simply intended as an example.
Think ".esq" if it makes you happy.


> On the other hand, the AICPA has no experience with the technical
> aspects of running a DNS registry.  Therefore, the obvious arrangement
> is that the AICPA would perform the value added service of
> authenticating the individual or firm, and perhaps assigning the domain
> name.  But it would contract out all the other technical functions of
> the dns registry to a registry operator.
>

This is, of course, one potential model.


>
> This arrangement has come to be called a "sponsored" TLD.  The AICPA in
> this case is the sponsor; the registry operator is a contractor.  It is
> the AICPA that is delegated the TLD, not the registry operator; the
> AICPA already has an approved monopoly function, and therefore there is
> no issue of creating a new monopoly.

So you got pissy with me because the example I picked
happened to coincide with what you call a "sponsored"
TLD rather than a "chartered" TLD?

Well, if it means that much to you, I stand corrected.

Harold