Re: NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS
Keep the agencies of the United States government out of this. This sounds like NSI is trying to wiggle out of participation in CORE. NSI does not like a solution that provides no guarantee that NSI will be one of the new registries. This is Washington politics - SNAFU and FUD. Operators, read the documentation and decide for yourself. http://www.iahc.org/ The IETF COREdb working group is defining a technical solution to "too much bureaucracy." Who thinks the FCC can be less burocratic than a shared database? Do I see any hands? If you agree with the IAHC solution then show your support and advocate that your company sign the MoU. --- On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:50:18 -0700 "Charles R. Hoynowski" <charles@etak.com> wrote:
NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS Network Solutions Inc., which currently registers all top-level domain names under contract to the National Science Foundation, has suggested that the Federal Communications Commission temporarily assume that function until an international legal authority can be created to manage the system. The transition period would allow for public comment on the plan in order to incorporate any new processes or structures deemed necessary. The plan is in contrast to an earlier proposal announced by the Internet International Ad Hoc Commission to create seven new shard generic top-level domains to be administered by 28 new registrars. NSI's president says the IAHC plan risks Internet instability, creates "too much bureaucracy," and will contribute to increased domain name legal disputes. (BNA Daily Report for Executives 16 Apr 97)
---------------End of Original Message----------------- -- From: Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net E-mail: jtk@titania.net Sent: 10:07:06 CST/CDT 04/22/97 If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction and march collectively into the future. -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
Keep the agencies of the United States government out of this.
This sounds like NSI is trying to wiggle out of participation in CORE. NSI does not like a solution that provides no guarantee that NSI will be one of the new registries.
[once again, for all those people who want to stop reading about iahc, nsi, internic, iana, or anything that deals with alternate registrations, hit 'd' now] Well lets see why they would do this; If NSI no longer provides registration services for the Internet for a number of tlds, the need for NSI goes down. When the need for NSI goes down, the amount of money they make goes down, which leads to downsizing and loss of jobs as well as decreased speed in registrations. Has anyone botherered to look how many people it takes to handle registrations, deletions, management of systems, programming, etc? Now, lets think about this. What happened when InterNIC *first* started providing domain registrations? It was pure hell. Registrations took forever. They went through a few different database formats, software changes all the time, you couldn't get them on the phone, etc etc. It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want to shove in 28 new ones? And each one of these 28 new ones is going to try and add domains to each of the 7 new tlds? We are going to start seeing legal hassles like nothing else. "I sent in my registration for my.firm at 3:32 PST to yyy registrations. Well, I sent mine in at 7:15 EST for it to zzz registrations, but they processed mine first, so I get it". Personally, I think that the new TLD's are good, though I would personally cut out ones such as .nom because that is just going to cause legal problems about who owns smith.nom, etc, but I don't think new registrars should be added. InterNIC should be it, one company providing this sort of thing is a hell of a lot more powerful than 20 little ones.
If you agree with the IAHC solution then show your support and advocate that your company sign the MoU.
You know, someone should really make an alternate proposal and see how many people sign for that or at least some sort of survey. Giving the people only one choice doesn't really prove anything. Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
Jordan Mendelson writes:
If NSI no longer provides registration services for the Internet for a number of tlds, the need for NSI goes down. When the need for NSI goes down, the amount of money they make goes down, which leads to downsizing and loss of jobs as well as decreased speed in registrations. [...] It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want to shove in 28 new ones?
That must explain why service and quality are always better around monopoly providers. Competition just doesn't provide anyone with any incentive to provide good business. In fact, I say we nationalize all the ISPs in the country. Obviously, by eliminating all this silly competition, we can improve price, quality and service. Anyone want to go and lobby with me for it? Perry Speaking for myself, and not in an official capacity Not close captioned for the sarcasm impaired
I'm sorry for taking up NANOG with this, but I couldn't resist...
Has anyone botherered to look how many people it takes to handle registrations, deletions, management of systems, programming, etc? Now, lets think about this. What happened when InterNIC *first* started providing domain registrations? It was pure hell. Registrations took forever. They went through a few different database formats, software changes all the time, you couldn't get them on the phone, etc etc.
It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And where are we today... Registrations take forever. You can't get them on the phone. They delete domains at random claiming they didn't pay. They delete domains based on minimal assertions by trademark owners.
to shove in 28 new ones? And each one of these 28 new ones is going to try and add domains to each of the 7 new tlds? We are going to start seeing legal hassles like nothing else. "I sent in my registration for my.firm at 3:32 PST to yyy registrations. Well, I sent mine in at 7:15 EST for it to zzz registrations, but they processed mine first, so I get it".
Actually, I believe procedures for resolving this are part of the IAHC documentation. If not, they certainly should be included prior to starting up such a process.
Personally, I think that the new TLD's are good, though I would personally cut out ones such as .nom because that is just going to cause legal problems about who owns smith.nom, etc, but I don't think new registrars should be added. InterNIC should be it, one company providing this sort of thing is a hell of a lot more powerful than 20 little ones.
The problem with this is many-fold. Not the least of which is that currently, NSI has no accountability to the user-community it serves. Free-market choice is shown to be a powerful way to create client-centric services. If you have another proposal to make NSI accountable for it's actions to the people it should be accountable to, let's hear it. Otherwise, I'll take the IAHC proposal over the current situation any day.
If you agree with the IAHC solution then show your support and advocate that your company sign the MoU.
You know, someone should really make an alternate proposal and see how many people sign for that or at least some sort of survey.
There are currently two choices on the table. I don't know what has stopped you from presenting any others you feel are appropriate. A The way things are today... NSI controlled B The IAHC proposal. Of those, I'll take B. I welcome any better proposals, though.
Giving the people only one choice doesn't really prove anything.
Obviously, you pick A from the two choices above, but that's still one of two choices. I don't see where you get one choice. I'd certainly welcome additional choices on the above menu. Owen
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Owen DeLong wrote:
"I sent in my registration for my.firm at 3:32 PST to yyy registrations. Well, I sent mine in at 7:15 EST for it to zzz registrations, but they processed mine first, so I get it".
Actually, I believe procedures for resolving this are part of the IAHC documentation.
Yes they are. The preventation of such race conditions is one of the main reasons for having a central CORE database rather like the central 800 number database. This also allows the use of commercial database software which solved this race condition approx. 25 years ago. And there is an IETF proto-WG already formed and working on protocols for the shared registries and central database with two working implementations already being played with. Send email to wessorh@ar.com for info on the WG.
There are currently two choices on the table. I don't know what has stopped you from presenting any others you feel are appropriate. A The way things are today... NSI controlled B The IAHC proposal.
C The eDNS proposal D The Name.Space proposal E Numerous other proposals made over the past two years that never gathered significant support behind them.
I'd certainly welcome additional choices on the above menu.
The European Community wants the whole thing negotiated, decided and run by government bureaucrats. They are *NOT* pleased that the IAHC has attempted an end-run around their bureaucratic fiat in Brussels. So I suppose this is a choice as well; shall we call it the Brussels round of the GATT, negotiations expected to be finalized sometime in 2008. :-( Two key documents (and short ones to boot) that everyone on this list should read are here: IAHC Final Report http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.txt gTLD Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.txt Note that the MoU is even shorter than the report and you could realistically sign the MoU even if you do not agree with every single point in the IAHC report. Also note that by signing the MoU, your company gets the right to be consulted about any future DNS changes as well as the right to review all activities of the POC and CORE. This is because every organization that signs the MoU gets one seat on the Policy Advisory Board. This means that in the future it will be quite clear what the Internet community's position is because everyone who registers to vote, will have a vote via the PAB. Register today. http://www.iahc.org/docs/contact-MoU.html Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
The European Community wants the whole thing negotiated, decided and run by government bureaucrats. They are *NOT* pleased that the IAHC has attempted an end-run around their bureaucratic fiat in Brussels. So I suppose this is a choice as well; shall we call it the Brussels round of the GATT, negotiations expected to be finalized sometime in 2008. :-(
s/Community/Commision/g possibly. I believe the general concensus from those who are involved with naming issues in Europe was that IAHC is rather rushed, and that *certain* of the elements therein were not particularly well thought out. I can't think of anyone not in a government/EC influenced body who *does* want the thing run by govt beurocrats - certainly not in the UK where I and others have just spent the last 18 months trying to avoid this happen to .uk. Alex Bligh Xara Networks (and NOMINET non-exec director)
registrations, deletions, management of systems, programming, etc? Now, lets think about this. What happened when InterNIC *first* started providing domain registrations? It was pure hell. Registrations took forever. They went through a few different database formats, software changes all the time, you couldn't get them on the phone, etc etc.
It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And where are we today...
Registrations take forever.
Actually, before all this mess with new billing started, I got registrations done in UNDER a day. My fastest time was 5 minutes.
You can't get them on the phone.
Well you could before all this past billing crap started :)
They delete domains at random claiming they didn't pay. They delete domains based on minimal assertions by trademark owners.
[see above]
Giving the people only one choice doesn't really prove anything.
Obviously, you pick A from the two choices above, but that's still one of two choices. I don't see where you get one choice.
I'd certainly welcome additional choices on the above menu.
No you don't understand. See, unless you have something solid of all the people who AREN'T signing, you can't figure what the ratio is between the people who want it and the people who don't. Jordan -- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, Jordan Mendelson wrote: [once again, for all those people who want to stop reading about iahc, nsi, internic, iana, or anything that deals with alternate registrations, hit 'd' now]
It took THIS long to get InterNIC to where they are today, and now we want to shove in 28 new ones? And each one of these 28 new ones is going to try and add domains to each of the 7 new tlds? We are going to start seeing legal hassles like nothing else. "I sent in my registration for my.firm at 3:32 PST to yyy registrations. Well, I sent mine in at 7:15 EST for it to zzz registrations, but they processed mine first, so I get it".
Personally, I think that the new TLD's are good, though I would personally cut out ones such as .nom because that is just going to cause legal problems about who owns smith.nom, etc, but I don't think new registrars should be added. InterNIC should be it, one company providing this sort of thing is a hell of a lot more powerful than 20 little ones.
The same could be said when AT&T was one company. We are not discussing breaking up NSI but rather adding competition - in the same way MCI and Sprint have added alternatives for people in North America. Yes, all 28 will not survive. But even if 3-4 others do come out and provide users with registration options other than NSI, we will have done our job. I live in a country with a monopoly Telco. If I do not like their service or their options, I have no where to turn. There is no ATM locally and the cost of a T1 line to the USA is $1m/yr. Competition provides alternatives as well as lower costs.
-- Jordan Mendelson : www.wserv.com/~jordy/ Web Services, Inc. : www.wserv.com
Hank Nussbacher IAHC member [the views expressed above belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other IAHC members]
participants (7)
-
Alex.Bligh -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jordan Mendelson -
Joseph T. Klein -
Michael Dillon -
owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US -
Perry E. Metzger