From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #43 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, March 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 043 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:40:30 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] "within the process" At 07:23 PM 3/16/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >No, it is not true. IANA was delegated authority to delegate ccTLDs, but NOT >gTLDs without the approval of the NSF. This is a clear fact, Kent, and is not IANA was never, repeat never, accountable to NSF. NSF came on the scene long after IANA established the DNS and long after IANA had been administering it. NSF did provide funding to NSI and that gave NSF a critical piece of power, since NSI held the mast DNS root. A tactical error that produced strategic problems. >CORE CREATED ITS OWN PROCESS with IANA'S help. I can go do the same, and with William, debate about these issues is facilitated by parties having at least a modicum of knowledge about the facts. It appears that you are free of that encumbrence. Core did not create the processes. It did not even create Core. Go back and learn some of the facts. >the same legitimacy. Just because no process existed doesn't mean you can go IANA had processes operating for over 10 years. How do you think we got com/net/org, for example? > > In addition, there is a fundamental logical fallacy in what you say -- > > withdrawal of a delegation of authority does not mean that the entity > > from which that authority was withdrawn never had the authority. > >They never had the authority. It wasn't withdrawn. Please, prove me wrong. Your assessment is based on your extensive experience with these activities at the time, William? >Point to a document from the NSF that gives IANA authority to create and add >new gTLDs without it's consent. see above. NSF was never an authority over IANA. For reference, the important letter you cite was on NSF letterhead, but actually came from the White House. The purpose was to give NSI better legal cover, I believe against the PGMedia case. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:44:33 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] "within the process" - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > see above. NSF was never an authority over IANA. So you say. IANA had no authority that wasn't specifically delegated to it Dave. You keep saying otherwise, and your support for those statements are just more...statements. Do you have documentation that shows that IANA had that authority? It certainly doesn't have it now, even ccTLD changes are being approved by the DoC prior to being entered into the roots. You claim it had the authority in the past? Then why didn't it get the CORE domains entered sooner? For 2 years before the DoC got involved CORE and IANA were promising consumers those domains would be added, but never seemed able to accomplish it. If they had the power......well, why are we here? - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40bgx8zLmV94Pz+IRArFcAJ4u18LNAvD9RpzNRgqsBfMPo/6cMQCdEV5S TlhOVvPOzrlSiV97aYLe3u4= =2BqX - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:03:02 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] application documents requirements off the top of my head i can think of the following sections that might be in an application for running a gTLD registry. I'm sure some of the sections listed below would be dependant on several questions being answered before the application process would begin. - -rick o general information, applicant name, address, contact information and list of directors. o business capabilities - an overview of the business, business plan technical capabilities, estimated volume. The applicant should also describe the proposed protocol and if it will maintain and manage whois information (like the CORE model) or provide a referal whois (like the NSI model) o estimated volumes of registrations. o descriptions of communications systems - network and telephone systems technical support etc. o security - how this applies to the protocol used for registrations and what phisical security mechinisms would be in place. o backup and disaster recovery, Service Level, and QOS issues o what should happen in the case of business failure, bankrupcy, insurance requirements o restrictions of current registrar status, is the applicant a gTLD or ccTLD registry or a ICANN accredited Registrar. o fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars, how are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? o would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question. o what gTLD(s) do they propose to run. On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Sounds like a good idea to me. (No, I'm not volunteering to help develop > the document. But I encourage other people to do so.) > > Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 21:59:01 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars, This implies that all registries would be shared. I know of no consensus on this point. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40cml8zLmV94Pz+IRAg3OAJ9KnNoarvJEI8/xYJHeWQEhuskKiwCgkf+6 5PUxPmsDzIJPvpBzNTzBlng= =bEcw - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:14:59 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements bill, I stated that some questions would need to be resolved and the model as far as whois to refer or not refer is still unasnwered as a requirement for all new registries. IMHO it should be open for the proposed registry. as for "shaired" I think there certainly is consesnus that there should be a model for "registrars" to participate and that the Registry is not a registrar and certainly not the sole registrar for the proposed gTLD. now, would you mind commenting on the utility of the other points in my outline. - -rick On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > > o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars, > > This implies that all registries would be shared. I know of no consensus on > this point. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:03:18 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > as for "shaired" I think there certainly is consesnus that there should > be a model for "registrars" to participate and that the Registry is not > a registrar and certainly not the sole registrar for the proposed gTLD. Consensus from where, Rick? It certainly has not been a consensus point here. There is no consensus any of the points raised in the paragraphs above that I have seen. I would certainly take exception to this model being forced onto every gTLD. It is an unnecessary restriction of business model that ICANN has no place putting into effect, and there are plenty of disadvantages to this kind of forced business model. > now, would you mind commenting on the utility of the other points in my > outline. This is the point I take the most contention with. It's the one I will cover. Maybe others will address the rest. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE40di28zLmV94Pz+IRAvGnAKDpaUNx/bofauRsGMxd+jL/YyZytgCguJjy rmx0wwuYsDrD1xFHCSP7u0s= =fb7P - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:56:32 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions All very nice, this interest in fairness and encouragement of delegation holders to do their best with what they've got. However, which basic principle prevails? Adding a gTLD to the root this year or Not adding a gTLD to the root this year? Remind me if necessary to ask the same question in 300 days. In the mean time I'll gladly let contract, even at a loss, all aspects of a registry, all aspects of a registrar, except policy and the cost of policy, to NSI. I have a user community to satisfy. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 05:54:38 -0800 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new monopolies in the DNS. While we haven't necessarily come to consensus on this point, it does not makes sense to argue such an issue. Do people really think that if we come to consensus that there could be new monopolies, ICANN and DOC would consider it? I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > William X. Walsh > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:59 PM > To: Rick H Wesson > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 17-Mar-2000 Rick H Wesson wrote: > > o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars, > > This implies that all registries would be shared. I know of no > consensus on > this point. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE40cml8zLmV94Pz+IRAg3OAJ9KnNoarvJEI8/xYJHeWQEhuskKiwCgkf+6 > 5PUxPmsDzIJPvpBzNTzBlng= > =bEcw > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:25:25 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] Exclusions I Concur, this would help in encouraging alternative business models and should help to level the playing field. Tim - -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 4:55 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions > I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar > should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new > registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but > to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and > registry phases is unfair to other companies. Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power over such a registry or registrar. Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries to have a bid for new TLDs. Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC, given their interest in NSI. --karl-- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:26:37 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG Report: deadlines and draft language Jon, I think the report understates the difficulties to forward progress. I think the report would be improved if it convayed a sense of the following to its readers: 1. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principles in the IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, 2. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principles in the DoC White and Green Papers, that a need for new gTLDs exists, 3. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle of ICANN having the capacity to act except subordinate to some hypotheticized registry operator and TLD selection agency, 4. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle that early access to the DNS is a privilige, and that equity of access is a legitimate function of government, or that any "digital divide" actually exists. 5. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle of participation in the work of WG-C (lurkers and cryptic voters), and who reject the principle of distinct DNSO working groups, and 6. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle that NSI has exhaustively defined the business and operational models for both registies and registrars. You can leave it as blocked by mystery or the unnamed prediliction of lists (other than most IETF WG lists) to failure, but it seems weak to not attempt to state causes. The NC may continue to dither, or it may mean something this time when it placed a date firm, or it may decide to put us our of our miseries "en masse" or it may look at the set of principles rejected and apply some winnowing criteria of their own to assist WG-C in meeting its charter in a timely fashion. If the NC decides that Indians are infra dig in the DNS I personally will be vastly relieved. Ditto for group 6, above, the CORE, IAHC, IETF set of survivors of this process, myself included. I wish they'd get off the dime and fill the vacant NC Liason role. A 2nd co-chair to sanity check (help you) and not leave weeks of time sans co-chair or "chair" (NC Liason) could be added as process issues the NC could act on could be in the report. If I think of anything more I'll make a 3rd mailing. Cheers, Eric Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:42:27 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements At 05:54 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: >I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other >competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. What examples do you have in mind? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:45:33 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] application documents requirements On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:54:38AM -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new > monopolies in the DNS. While we haven't necessarily come to consensus on > this point, it does not makes sense to argue such an issue. Do people > really think that if we come to consensus that there could be new > monopolies, ICANN and DOC would consider it? > > I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other > competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. In theory, of course. For chartered TLDs, there are very wide possibilites. But as far as open gTLDs, in practice any other models are going to require intense scrutiny and indefinite debate. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:48:27 -0800 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements I really don't know - creativity is not my strong suit, but I don't want us restricting others from finding ways to construct alternative competitive models. As a registrar, I hope all new gTLDs have a registry/registrar model so that I can expand the services I offer. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:42 AM > To: jelliott@tucows.com > Cc: William X. Walsh; Rick H Wesson; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements > > > At 05:54 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > >I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other > >competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. > > What examples do you have in mind? > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:49:25 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements How about a minor change to accomodate non-shared registries, which are probably necessary in the case of restrictive charter gTLDs. o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars *if the registry is shared*, how are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? Tim Vienneau - -----Original Message----- From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:03 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] application documents requirements off the top of my head i can think of the following sections that might be in an application for running a gTLD registry. I'm sure some of the sections listed below would be dependant on several questions being answered before the application process would begin. - -rick o general information, applicant name, address, contact information and list of directors. o business capabilities - an overview of the business, business plan technical capabilities, estimated volume. The applicant should also describe the proposed protocol and if it will maintain and manage whois information (like the CORE model) or provide a referal whois (like the NSI model) o estimated volumes of registrations. o descriptions of communications systems - network and telephone systems technical support etc. o security - how this applies to the protocol used for registrations and what phisical security mechinisms would be in place. o backup and disaster recovery, Service Level, and QOS issues o what should happen in the case of business failure, bankrupcy, insurance requirements o restrictions of current registrar status, is the applicant a gTLD or ccTLD registry or a ICANN accredited Registrar. o fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars, how are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? o would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question. o what gTLD(s) do they propose to run. On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Sounds like a good idea to me. (No, I'm not volunteering to help develop > the document. But I encourage other people to do so.) > > Jon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:03:36 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] further exclusions/surity insterments how do folks feel about the preformance bond that NSI Registry requires for a Surity insterment. IMHO if there are 6 to 10 new gTLDs and just for argument each gTLD is allocated to a new registry and each registry required a simular surity interment. current ICANN accredited registrars would need $600,000 to $1,000,000 in either cash or Fedility insurance to participate with all the new registries. should there be any requirements on new registries to ensure that a surity inseterement is *not* required. seems hard to specificly lower the barrier to entry in such a way. It also is very hard for me to see that all active registrys would want to tie up to a million in cash or other assets to participate. how should this issue be addressed? - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:06:30 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements William, I am not suggesting that there is consesnsus about sharing within this group,; however I point to the green/white paper and several years of many groups working to implement shared access to the current list of gTLDs. I doubt there is a significant group of folks from any of those involved that wish to create new monopolies. - -rick On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > Consensus from where, Rick? It certainly has not been a consensus > point here. There is no consensus any of the points raised in the > paragraphs above that I have seen. I would certainly take exception > to this model being forced onto every gTLD. It is an unnecessary > restriction of business model that ICANN has no place putting into > effect, and there are plenty of disadvantages to this kind of forced > business model. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:13:15 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements tim, why is a chartered gTLD required to be a monopoly? why could it not be "shaired?" - -rick On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, T Vienneau wrote: > How about a minor change to accomodate non-shared registries, which are > probably necessary in the case of restrictive charter gTLDs. > > o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars *if > the registry is shared*, how are the gTLD root servers operated and > updated? > > Tim Vienneau > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:14:29 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: RE: [wg-c] Exclusions Hmmm... Let's see, can we extrapolate on this? No one who is developing commercial property in New York City should be allowed to develop a commercial property in, say, Los Angeles - or anywhere else in the world? No one who operates a delivery service in Paris should be allowed to operate a delivery service in Las Vegas? No one who runs a manufacturing line for memory chips should be allowed to operate a manufacturing line for CPUs? No one with any kind of developed and effectively operating infrastructure should be allowed to utilize economies of scale and promote efficiencies by expanding their product lines? Just wondering where this kind of reasoning inevitably leads ... I understand your intent (restraint of monopoly behavior). But there is a significant body of law and economic theory which might be applied to this concept which still allows for unconstrained business activity and promotion of efficiencies, without any subjective "morally-based' restraint of trade, so to speak. Bill Semich .NU Domain At 06:25 AM 3/17/00 -0800, T Vienneau wrote: >I Concur, this would help in encouraging alternative business models and >should help to level the playing field. > >Tim > >-----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 4:55 PM >To: wg-c@dnso.org >Subject: Re: [wg-c] Exclusions > > > >> I think that it's only fair that any company/entity that is a registrar >> should not be eligible for inclusion in the testbed phase for new >> registries. After the testbed, they should be allowed to apply, but >> to give a company testbed status in BOTH the registrar and >> registry phases is unfair to other companies. > >Makes sense to me - Indeed I would go further and suggest that any person >or company that has a significant interest in an already existing TLD (to >my mind, *any* TLD, whether gTLD, ccTLD, or otherwise) ought to be >encouraged to fully focus on developing the asset it already has and not >be permitted to obtain a second bite from the TLD apple. > >By "significant" interest, I would mean anyone/company that is a registry >or registrar for a TLD or any person who has a meaningful control power >over such a registry or registrar. > >Thus, for example, I would not want NSI or any of the current registries >to have a bid for new TLDs. Nor would, for instance, Verisign or SAIC, >given their interest in NSI. > > --karl-- > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com > Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:30:45 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] getting work done, versus not Josh, I anticipated such a response, but hoped there was substance behind your comment. This working group is supposed to produce solutions. Having participants raise theoretical issues, with no foundation and no resolution, is a superb way to ensure that we continue to fail in our assigned task. It is not enough to participate with good intention. What counts is actually producing results. There are always "what if" challenges to proposals. An infinite number. There is no benefit in pursuing every single "what if" that someone raises, unless the goal is infinite academic discussion. It is long past time for this working group to stop treating its activities as an exercise in theoretical politics and, instead, worry about serving DNS users with new gTLDS. There is a working DNS with a long history. We need to stop trying to invent everything from scratch and, instead, focus on formalizing and enhancing ESTABLISHED practise. With nearly 15 years of history, the DNS has plenty of established practise. Pretending otherwise is, again, a good way to ensure making no progress. d/ At 06:48 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: >I really don't know - creativity is not my strong suit, but I don't want us >restricting others from finding ways to construct alternative competitive >models. > > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > > To: jelliott@tucows.com > > Cc: William X. Walsh; Rick H Wesson; wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements > > > > At 05:54 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > > >I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other > > >competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. > > > > What examples do you have in mind? =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 07:41:37 -0800 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements Yes (of course in theory - this is WG-C!), but just because we cannot think of a different model, should we limit the system to only perform under one model? I think the minimum criteria should be that an open gTLD have an acceptable competitive structure. What we will most likely see is all proposals of registry/registrar models, but we are not limiting the system to new ideas. Saying we have all the answers is not the solution or strategy we need to convey. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent > Crispin > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:46 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] application documents requirements > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 05:54:38AM -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > > I don't think it is realistic to think that ICANN will approve new > > monopolies in the DNS. While we haven't necessarily come to > consensus on > > this point, it does not makes sense to argue such an issue. Do people > > really think that if we come to consensus that there could be new > > monopolies, ICANN and DOC would consider it? > > > > I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other > > competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. > > In theory, of course. For chartered TLDs, there are very wide > possibilites. But as far as open gTLDs, in practice any other models > are going to require intense scrutiny and indefinite debate. > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:32:02 -0800 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] getting work done, versus not Progress is our #1 priority, and I don't think my suggestion that alternative competitive models are possible will impede any progress made in this WG. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:31 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] getting work done, versus not > > > Josh, > > I anticipated such a response, but hoped there was substance behind your > comment. > > This working group is supposed to produce solutions. Having participants > raise theoretical issues, with no foundation and no resolution, > is a superb > way to ensure that we continue to fail in our assigned task. > > It is not enough to participate with good intention. What counts is > actually producing results. > > There are always "what if" challenges to proposals. An infinite > number. There is no benefit in pursuing every single "what if" that > someone raises, unless the goal is infinite academic discussion. > > It is long past time for this working group to stop treating its > activities > as an exercise in theoretical politics and, instead, worry about serving > DNS users with new gTLDS. > > There is a working DNS with a long history. We need to stop trying to > invent everything from scratch and, instead, focus on formalizing and > enhancing ESTABLISHED practise. > > With nearly 15 years of history, the DNS has plenty of established > practise. Pretending otherwise is, again, a good way to ensure making no > progress. > > d/ > > At 06:48 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > >I really don't know - creativity is not my strong suit, but I > don't want us > >restricting others from finding ways to construct alternative competitive > >models. > > > > > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] > > > To: jelliott@tucows.com > > > Cc: William X. Walsh; Rick H Wesson; wg-c@dnso.org > > > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements > > > > > > At 05:54 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > > > >I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other > > > >competitive models other than a registry/registrar model. > > > > > > What examples do you have in mind? > > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:41:40 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: [none] Rick, I didn't require the chartered gTLD to be monopoly, I just said it should be possible within the scope of the application criteria. That said, I believe a monopoly or oligopoly have a more realistic chance of providing meaningful enforcement of a restrictive charter, for example .mil Tim - -----Original Message----- From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 7:13 AM To: T Vienneau Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements tim, why is a chartered gTLD required to be a monopoly? why could it not be "shaired?" - -rick On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, T Vienneau wrote: > How about a minor change to accomodate non-shared registries, which are > probably necessary in the case of restrictive charter gTLDs. > > o operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars *if > the registry is shared*, how are the gTLD root servers operated and > updated? > > Tim Vienneau __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #43 *************************