Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 01:10:16PM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
> 
> In the case mentioned (.union), I think it goes without saying that
> multiple organizations will present themselves.  Why not resolve
> that tension by saying (to the set of all technically-qualified
> candidates) "set up a shared registration system (either on a coop
> or for-profit basis as you see fit) and all of you act as
> registrars.  If you end up playing Ten Little Capitalists, we'll
> revisit the whole process in eighteen months and possibly award the
> registry to the surviving registrar, but until then, play nice and
> foster the growth of the Internet."

This is an excellent solution.  However, I imagine the following situation:

1)  Registry or registries petition ICANN for right to host .union.
2)  ICANN checks, and each claims support of one or more union organizations,
3)  Registries are unwilling to work together as they are direct competitors

...and in the meantime, the only thing any of the union organizations
(whose supposed benefit this is all being done for in this example)
have heard about this was when they were approached by some stranger
who explained to some union rep in very vague terms what DNS is and
what a TLD is, and why they should bless their company to host it for
them.  The union rep, not knowing enough to answer intelligently, but
knowing about "that Internet thing" and knowing it's "hot", agrees.

The union groups end up getting used, and the registr( y | ies) end up
making money off the TLD which the unions will never see, and potentially
using the TLD in ways the group supposedly served by that TLD may or may
not agree with if they knew enough to know what was going on.

Your solution, which I like very much, works only in the case where
the groups to benefit from the TLD are:

* Aware of ICANN, DNS, the DNSO, WG-C, and the issues 
* in posession of the infrastructure and talent necessary to operate a
    registry
* of the mind that this is something they need to do.

Sadly, almost none of these groups about which we've been talking (and
the union groups for .union are but one example) have any idea what we're
talking about, why they should care, and what could happen if they don't.
Even if they were aware, in all likelihood they don't have the wherewithal
to run a registry, and would still end up getting screwed by some 
opportunistic third party.

In short, this all-too-likely scenario ends up as a bad situation for
the Internet as a whole (due to the great potential for abuse and misuse
of the TLD as described above) and for the groups the idea of TLDs like
.union is supposed to benefit.

If it were possible to create the situation you describe above, Kevin,
I'd be all for it.  I just don't believe that can happen the way things
currently stand.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA