RE: [wg-c] my position paper v. 1.1

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 02:12 AM 10/20/1999 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> > While the rest of the paper balances issues carefully, on
> > this point you
> > make an eyes-closed, idealistic assertion that is demonstrably false.
>
>Demonstrable only with corner-case arguments.

1.  To quote Paul Vixie (and others): designing systems for the large scale 
of the Internet requires asking a) what if everyone did it, and b) what 
happens when the Internet is several orders of magnitude larger?  Cases 
that currently occupy the corner can quickly come to occupy center stage.

2.  As I noted, NSI has done an excellent job of demonstrating the 
likelihood of lock-in problems.

> > A company (commercial or non-commercial) that feels its revenue stream is
> > protected will not automatically be inclined to improve its services.  In
> > general that motivation comes only from fear, such as fear of competition.
>
>Blanket statement that is only true in a very specific set of circumstances.

The statement was made in blanket form quite intentionally, because it IS a 
universal.

It is extremely rare that an organization lacking pressures to change and 
improve will change or improve.  Competition is not the only way to impose 
those pressures, but it is the best and most reliable.

> > Although it might, eventually, be possible to find a way to permit
> > for-profit registries, the track record with NSI shows
> > clearly that we do
> > not know how, yet.
>
>NSI was started by academics and scientists. Their market blundering should
>not be applied to REAL capitalists. It is especially true that a sample of
>ONE doesn't prove a damned thing.

Absent other theoretical and market basis for a concern, you are right.  A 
sample of one does not prove population behavior.

However the concern for abuses by companies that have too much control over 
their customers is not specific to this discussion and is not new.  In this 
case, the sample of one just happens to be excellent at showing that the 
fear of what "might" happen in fact can, because it in fact has.


At 05:05 AM 10/20/1999 , A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>At 05:12 AM 10/20/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>Just in case no one noticed, the hawk is flying again.
>Jon's treatment is neutral and balanced on this key
>consideration - both from a substantive and legal
>standpoint.  It also parallels similar neutral

The primary concern pertains to the way a company treats its customers, 
absent legitimate competitive forces.  That's a business concern, not a 
legal concern, per se, no matter how much a lawyer might want to see it 
that way ("if the only tool you have is a hammer...")

One of the difficulties in this debate remains the number of people lacking 
expertise in a particular topic, nonetheless offering forth firm assertions 
of truth about that topic.  When challenged on this, they will either 
create fictitious expertise or resort to ad hominems.

As I noted, it is clear that Jonathan sought/seeks a balanced consideration 
and he mostly achieved it well in the earlier draft.  However on the topic 
of for-profit vs. non-profit, he offered a conclusion that was quite simply 
wrong.  The text he has added to the latest draft corrects that problem 
nicely.  That's why I've added support to the document.

>treatment of the Federal Trade Commission staff
>filing in the NTIA proceeding.

And, of course, it is important that those citing that FTC report carefully 
ignore the substantive criticisms of the considerable vagueness and naivete 
in it.

>While there are obviously people with strong religious
>views on this subject like Crocker's - and indeed in

Right, Tony.  You are the picture of detached, professional participation, 
focusing on issues rather than demons, like ISOC or ITU or...

>the other direction my own personal views which are
>strongly opposed to monopoly non-profit organizations

Strongly opposed, NOW.  In the impressively varied and long pattern of 
forcefully contrary positions that you have taken, you once did not find 
the model so onerous and, in fact, YOU were the one that recommended 
incorporating in Switzerland.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                 675 Spruce Drive        Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting    Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA    Fax: +1 408 273 6464
<mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>            <http://www.brandenburg.com>