From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #51 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 051 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:08:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > But as long as there are going to be only a few new TLDs, then it behooves > us to encourage creative and imaginative newcomers. > I'm not sure that I follow your logic re: diversity. True diversity implies a completely open-call that encourages all interested parties to participate. Diversity does not mean limiting the process to those that have not yet stepped up to the plate. Further, IANAL, but this limitation brings to mind several scenarios that may put ICANN on very shaky legal ground. I am very fearful of any recommendations that do not allow for full and proper market competition. ObDisclosure: We are a registrar... - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:11:11 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 My vote is: Yes. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41VB/8zLmV94Pz+IRAvuVAJ9hT9+xGRfuQBvtMokXT4OpHxXUmgCgqU6x DcMexKUKentYue/OmBogVto= =WGNq - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 13:54:09 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report my vote is 'yes' - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:39:14 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Mar-2000 Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > I am very fearful of any recommendations that do not allow for full and > proper market competition. Full and proper market competition would include competition at the registry level also, would it not? I can't locate the link to the FTC report on this issue, does anyone have it handy? Milton? I think it would provide a good basis for discussion on this issue. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41VcR8zLmV94Pz+IRAvK2AJ9WwmYNQlAEhr3SFKJsFMsTWm+UigCgtAfh yinHWbpWMRXWUUTNaQlQaDg= =3GZd - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:47:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > On 19-Mar-2000 Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > I am very fearful of any recommendations that do not allow for full and > > proper market competition. > > Full and proper market competition would include competition at the registry > level also, would it not? Perhaps, but registry competition and registrar diversity are two completely different issues. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:00:54 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >Full and proper market competition would include competition at the registry >level also, would it not? Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the registry level" and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical constraints, such as those described by the Internet Architecture Board. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:16:45 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report I vote: Yes. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:26:15 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >>Full and proper market competition would include competition at the registry >>level also, would it not? > > Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the registry level" > and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical constraints, such as > those described by the Internet Architecture Board. > Dave, We have over 240 registries today. Can you explain how this works in light of any "technical constraints?" - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41WIX8zLmV94Pz+IRAupXAJ9u1CF/DCnbsZLhOl50X0hh0dhSRgCgvVFz cSGK0DWLGJVLdVomraYYwf0= =9O0u - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:29:42 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] reposted for Eric Brunner NB: Majordomo tends to bounce messages with the string "s*u*b*s*c*r*i*b*e"; it thinks it's getting an admin request. -- jtw >To: wg-c@dnso.org >Subject: Administrivia >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:26:57 -0500 >From: Eric Brunner > >The number of *ubscribers dipped since last week, with the following changes: > >un*ubscribed: >--------------- >Tony Rutkowski NSI, co-signer of PPB (Tom Newell, Roger > Cochetti and Ken Cartwright of NSI remain) >Chris Burton (lurker) >Sue Leader (lurker) >Heyeyoung Kang (new) >Astrid Broich (voted "YES" on 6-10) >Stephanie Rulfs (new) > >*ubscribed: >--------------- >Gerry Nolan > >address changes: >--------------- >Mark Langston (formerly @home.com now @bitshift.org) >G. Schuckman (new, formerly @register.com now @starpower.net) > >There are 139 *ubscribers to wg-c, 8 to wg-c-digest > >I've given up partisanship for Lent. Administrativia will be it for the time >being. > >Kitakitamatsinopowaw, >Eric > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:40:50 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail Marilyn's suggestion here makes some sense to me -- these other two domains are underutuilized and I've seen other examples of the multiple-registers-undertaken-in-order-to-avoid-confusion duplication (triplication?) Exploiting what's available now in better ways would seem potentially quick and smart. > > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 3:12 PM > To: 'Milton Mueller'; Rick H Wesson > Cc: wgc > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail > > Should we also be talking about spinning .net and .org out into separate > registries? That would present new business opportunities to operate and > market names in these gTLDs. > > .org should be more attractive, it would seem to me, than it is. There's > too much confusion right now, and I think NSI adds to it, perhaps > inadvertedly. For instance, when a new non profit group, like a group > focused on protecting kids online launched (real example), they found it > necessary to register in .com and .net, and .org. That happened because > there is no clear marketing distinction between those "brands". (Sorry, > but > bear with me for a moment on this). > > When this group registered "kidsonline.org", to their chagrin, someone > registered the .com version. OOPS, wasn't about protecting kids, believe > me! > So, lesson learned. When they launched their next non profit > group/service, > they registered all three names, but are merely pointing to the .org site, > where the content/service is located. > > Marketing the distinction between the three isn't in NSI's business > interest, but if they were separate, it would be in the competitive > registry's interest... > > Just a thought... Any ideas from others on this? Marilyn > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] > Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 4:16 AM > To: Rick H Wesson > Cc: wgc > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: your mail > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick H Wesson" > > > could you think of a reason that a generic TLD should be chartered and > run > > by a monopoly. Its hard from me to understand why we would take 2 steps > > back and create more situations which have taken more than 4 years to > > resolve. The NSI monopoly of the .com .net and .org gTLDs is exactly > what > > I thought we were to avoid. > > No. NSI had a monopoly because there were NO other registries in the world > capable of offering a gTLD. NSI was a monopoly "registry." Many of not > most > of the problems associated with it could have been avoided by authorizing > new "registries" regardless of whether they were shared or not. > > NSI was also a very bad registrar in many respects, but IMHO that was > primarily because one company was stuck with handling 75% of the world's > registrations. > > New gTLD registries -- such as .biz or .firm -- would introduce > competition. > Differentiated registries would also introduce competition for segments of > the market. It is simply wrong to say that intergation of the registry and > registrar functions per se creates a "monopoly." and it is also false as a > matter of historical record to say that the White and Green Paper > processes > ruled in favor of the shared model for anything but .com. And the shared > model was chosen for NSI ONLY because it was so dominant. It is not a > serious problem for new registries with a small market share. > > NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:41:33 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: [wg-c] FTC report on "lock-in" - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.ftc.gov/be/v980005.htm - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41WWt8zLmV94Pz+IRAmhgAJ0b5Vs6l56hO9mAKG0II1xhM13EggCgzEGd b10qCKXf3FNC6RDTdHufygY= =jTwZ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:40:02 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > But as long as there are going to be only a few new TLDs, then it behooves > > us to encourage creative and imaginative newcomers. > I'm not sure that I follow your logic re: diversity. True diversity > implies a completely open-call that encourages all interested parties to > participate. Diversity does not mean limiting the process to those that > have not yet stepped up to the plate. > > Further, IANAL, but this limitation brings to mind several scenarios that > may put ICANN on very shaky legal ground. > > I am very fearful of any recommendations that do not allow for full and > proper market competition. > > ObDisclosure: We are a registrar... Thanks for the disclosure. As for "very shaky legal ground", as I see it, ICANN has already walked out to the end of the plank of "monopoly" in that it is acting as an arbiter of who may and who may not participate in de facto dominant root system. ICANN has already imposed many arbitrary requirements, such as dictating contractual terms that must be imposed on registrants, such as business models, etc. And here is a requirement, diversity of control over TLD rights, that actually enhances competition over an ICANN created scarcity. To my mind mandated diversity of control is more likely to withstand antitrust complaints than just about anything else that has passed under ICANN's "authority". If there were no artificial scarcity of TLDs then I'd share your concerns. But there is, in fact, such a scarcity and there are only going to be so many seats at the table for those new assets. And those seats ought to be warmed by those who aren't already at the DNS feast. Indeed, as it happens, those already at the table are getting free benefits of NSI's royal supper while the newcomers won't be able to eat until they cook their own meals from ingredients they must bring by themselves and at their own expense. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:52:08 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs I only consider IAB contraints to be guidelines and not otherwise a chain-set. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On > Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 3:01 PM > To: William X. Walsh > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > > At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >Full and proper market competition would include competition > at the registry > >level also, would it not? > > Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the > registry level" > and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical > constraints, such as > those described by the Internet Architecture Board. > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:54:52 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report I/TUCOWS.com vote "yes" > > Report (Part One) of > Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:10:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > As for "very shaky legal ground", as I see it, ICANN has already walked > out to the end of the plank of "monopoly" in that it is acting as an > arbiter of who may and who may not participate in de facto dominant root > system. I don't see it the same way Karl. They do not pick and choose participants, they review prospective players in accordance with well established technical and operational requirements. To my knowledge, no one has been turned away. In the same way we had to walk a very shaky plank with our implementation is it related to the DOC/NSI/ICANN contract bundle, so does ICANN in ensuring the sound technical and operational execution of the current root. > ICANN has already imposed many arbitrary requirements, such as > dictating contractual terms that must be imposed on registrants, such as > business models, etc. I don't disagree with your comments about the contractual terms - keep in mind that they were, too a reasonable degree, subject to a great deal of criticism and revision prior to implementation. As far as ICANN dictating business models, I don't agree at all. Just take a look at the vibrant dissonance between the models employed by the existing set of registrars. > And here is a requirement, diversity of control over TLD rights, that > actually enhances competition over an ICANN created scarcity. To my mind > mandated diversity of control is more likely to withstand antitrust > complaints than just about anything else that has passed under ICANN's > "authority". > This is a slippery slope. The next logical extension of your arguement is that no one with a stake in the existing namespace can join in the reindeer games. Keep in mind that there is a huge difference in being a registrant, registrar and registry under the current system. I can buy the arguement if it is limited to NSI (different topic, but gTLD registries should be limited in the number of registries they can operate...about three sounds good), but even then, this still puts ICANN in the position of having to create a blacklist of firms that they refuse to do business with. Not good policy given the current legislative landscape in the US. > If there were no artificial scarcity of TLDs then I'd share your concerns. "Six to Ten" followed by a period of evaluation doesn't necessarily imply "stop at six to ten". > > But there is, in fact, such a scarcity and there are only going to be so > many seats at the table for those new assets. And those seats ought to be > warmed by those who aren't already at the DNS feast. > There are lots of seats at the ICANN table, and more will be added as time goes by. Precluding the existing invitees from the feast does nothing to further the diversity you speak of. > Indeed, as it happens, those already at the table are getting free > benefits of NSI's royal supper while the newcomers won't be able to eat > until they cook their own meals from ingredients they must bring by > themselves and at their own expense. Such is the burden of any new business. ICANN can't change this. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:09:47 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I vote yes. Paul Garrin Name.Space, Inc. http://name-space.com - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBONVsSyeISEg/zQ2VEQK7twCfbg00uSpVLQTAgrfraxvRX1Oe43sAoIwv DaiMpnm+GTtPo/wMY5YmmFDr =3Cgd - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:26:29 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs >...but even then, this still puts ICANN in the position >of having to create a blacklist of firms that they refuse to do business >with. Not good policy given the current legislative landscape in the US. Karl is not talking about forever, he's talking about the testbed. See comment below. >> If there were no artificial scarcity of TLDs then I'd share your concerns. > >"Six to Ten" followed by a period of evaluation doesn't necessarily imply >"stop at six to ten". Agreed, but the testbed evaluation period will be significantly different from anything that goes beyond. For all we know, there may be no more than 6-10. For all we know, it may take another 5 years to get more than the 6-10. Nobody knows. >There are lots of seats at the ICANN table, and more will be added as time >goes by. Precluding the existing invitees from the feast does nothing to >further the diversity you speak of. That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that giving an invitee seconds before someone waiting at the door has even taken their first plate is unfair, at best. There's plenty of room, as you say. So let's let everyone get their firsts before we start the call for seconds. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:27:16 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] Vote I vote Yes. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:41:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that giving an invitee > seconds before someone waiting at the door has even taken their first > plate is unfair, at best. There's plenty of room, as you say. So let's > let everyone get their firsts before we start the call for seconds. Which still leaves the question concerning the connection between existing registries v. existing registrars dangling. To be quite honest, I still don't understand what precluding existing registrars accomplishes. We don't have any grand design to run a registry, but precluding us because we chose to a) lower our registration costs for our retail business and b) drop value back to our existing clients by setting up a wholesale biz simply doesn't resonate. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:53:00 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 03:26 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 19-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 02:39 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >>Full and proper market competition would include competition at the > registry > >>level also, would it not? > > > > Please specify exactly what you mean by "competition at the registry > level" > > and how pursuit of it does not run afoul of technical constraints, such as > > those described by the Internet Architecture Board. > >We have over 240 registries today. Can you explain how this works in >light of >any "technical constraints?" William, you used a term and I asked you to explain it. Instead you cam back with a question, but no explanation. So I rpeat my question: what do you mean "competition at the registry level"? None of those 240 are "shared registries". They are individual regisitries, each under control of a single authority. Some have multiple registrars. Is that what you meant? At 03:52 PM 3/19/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >I only consider IAB contraints to be guidelines and not otherwise a >chain-set. Each of us is free to choose to ignore the considerable expertise of others. d. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:04:29 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs I would accept, for the sake of discussion, that your point has merit and should be examined. I hope that you would, in turn, see my point as applying directly to registrars who were part of the initial testbed, then, as they enjoyed the early benefits thereof. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 4:41 PM Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs > > That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that giving an invitee > seconds before someone waiting at the door has even taken their first > plate is unfair, at best. There's plenty of room, as you say. So let's > let everyone get their firsts before we start the call for seconds. Which still leaves the question concerning the connection between existing registries v. existing registrars dangling. To be quite honest, I still don't understand what precluding existing registrars accomplishes. We don't have any grand design to run a registry, but precluding us because we chose to a) lower our registration costs for our retail business and b) drop value back to our existing clients by setting up a wholesale biz simply doesn't resonate. - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:59:50 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > William, you used a term and I asked you to explain it. Instead you cam > back with a question, but no explanation. So I rpeat my question: what do > you mean "competition at the registry level"? You know perfectly well what I mean, Dave. I'm not getting caught up in your word games. > None of those 240 are "shared registries". They are individual > regisitries, each under control of a single authority. Some have multiple > registrars. Is that what you meant? I think that was perfectly clear. There is no need to mandate that all registries be "shared" and there are certainly no technical constraints that they must be this way. BTW, can you please point the exact IAB technical constraints you mean? They don't seem to exist. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41XgG8zLmV94Pz+IRAn32AKDnu33kfhaIXDG44BXxUYgHqfp5xgCguYB1 wIMb7y/RycyvVDE9nkR9h3s= =UgQ7 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:40:43 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yes - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBONWPqunW+xcLRJy3EQKoFQCg/3ia7zBd1jZ+Q7kyruoRFuXLCQMAn35H URXFmU7j7e79J3Td+X7nx6Op =xZdA - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 100 20:36:50 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version > Here is the "frozen" version of the WG-C report, taking into account > additional comments received. Because this comes a few hours later than > promised, I propose that we extend the voting period to 3 a.m. UTC (10 > p.m. US EST) on Monday night / Tuesday morning. All votes *must* be in > before then, so that I can pass the report onto the Names Council. So far, > I count Petter Rindforth and Anthony Lupo as voting no on the report, and > Justin McCarthy as voting yes. Please let me know if you have atttempted > to vote on the report but aren't on that list (or if you are on that list > but don't consider yourself to have voted). Majority vote prevails, as set > out in . > > Thanks to all. I agree that this is a valid (though rather pathetic due to the lack of progress) report. Count me in (regretfully) as a yes vote. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:00:52 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs At 04:59 PM 3/19/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: >On 20-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > > William, you used a term and I asked you to explain it. Instead you cam > > back with a question, but no explanation. So I rpeat my > question: what do > > you mean "competition at the registry level"? > >You know perfectly well what I mean, Dave. I'm not getting caught up in your >word games. Glad you are so sure about what I know, when I'm not. The language you used has been used in very different ways by different people. Amazing how difficult it is to get a simple question answered. > > None of those 240 are "shared registries". They are individual > > regisitries, each under control of a single authority. Some have multiple > > registrars. Is that what you meant? > >I think that was perfectly clear. There is no need to mandate that all >registries be "shared" and there are certainly no technical constraints that If it had been so perfectly, the question would not have been asked. As to mandating, you asked the original question in the context of competition. One of the very strong impeti (impetuses?) for the efforts that led to creating ICANN was to introduce competition in DNS administration... where possible and appropriate. >they must be this way. BTW, can you please point the exact IAB technical >constraints you mean? They don't seem to exist. Yes, Internet Drafts are difficult to find. So few people know about them or use them and they aren't even mentioned on the IETF home page, except in the same size type as everything else there... d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 100 20:46:46 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs > I know some folks don't like how the whois got distributed when NSI > Registry went into "shaired" mode. > > How do folks propose the whois service to work with additional registraies > running new gTLDs. > -rick As far as I'm concerned, the registry database should contain enough data to allow a registrant transfer from one registrar to another without any co-operation from the first registrar. It should contain enough data to be able to realistically identify the registrant. In other words, if a registrar dies uncooperatively, it should not be catastrophic for those registrants that chose it. heavy-registry/thin-registrar would be my choice as a model, much like what happens with AFNIC (for .fr) or nominet (for .uk) as opposed to what happens with NSI (for .com). Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:15:54 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report yes ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #51 *************************