🚀 go-pugleaf

From: "Harry Palmer" <silly@silly.net>
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
Subject: Governments Green Paper Info-IMPORTANT
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:40:05 -0500
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <6a5t90$vsg$1@isn.dac.neu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.33.184.227
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3

Below is some info that I and concerned parties should be leaked to the
public.  A follow up letter is on its way too.



Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:07:37 +0200
From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
To: CORE <core@core.gtld-mou.org>
Subject: Good new, bad news, and no-news
HI CORErs,
As you know there are lots of rumours out there about what the USGov Green
Paper (due last November 1) will say about domain names in general and our
process in particular.
Over the week-end we got some direct input about this, albeit we have not
seen
the actual paper (whcih we suspect it is still not finalized).
Ira Magaziner has organized a series of telconferences with different
people.
One of them was with David Maher, Alan Hanson and Jon Postel. His basic
message (what he wanted to convey) may be read as "you will get something
you
want, but not all you want".
Here it follows the outline of what Ira announced would be the now famous
Green Paper (aka "the transition paper"). It contains four basic points. (He
has refused to send it in writing so please be aware that this is what we
all
got from his explanations; some points vary from version to version, ie from
audience to audience).
Good News are that, despite what our well-known opponents and some members
have repeatedly claimed, we will get into the root as soon as we complete
the
testing. Bad News are the rst of the proposal. I add that ther are also a
lot
of No News, as this points may be developed in many rahter different ways,
and
hus there is still a lot of vagueness around it.
The Four Points
1. They insist in an Internet, and more especifically, a DNS under IANA's
authority. But IANA has to be reorganized to get a more stable and
diversified
structure as a non-profit (US) corporation with wide private-sector
participation, but as an agency of the US government. In the meanwhile the
USGov will exerce "direct oversight". What's worse, the restructuring of
IANA
will be done in a period long period: "up to two years, probably less"!!
2.  They want to introduce full comeptition in the regitrars' market (wait
for
the details below...)
3.  They also want to introduce competition at the Registry level. Ie. CORE
SRS as a Registry would compete with NSI as a Registry and probably with
other
registries. No hint how all these registries would be ovverseen, or
who/how/whn decides who become a Registry.
4.  They want to repeal the tax ($30 US of the $100) that goes into the
infrastructure fund.
Let's have a closer view...
This means CORE gets *ONE* TLD _now_. Some others will be rolled out (no
specific timeble. CORE would eventually get up to *FIVE* TLDs (why five? No
idea... Some other poeple reported to usnthat Ira siad that we wil have "one
or two" now).
This is simply UNACCEPTABLE. It is a radical change from what the very USGov
was acepting only a couple of weeks before. And it does not make any sense
at
all ("you'll get into the root as soon as you proof that your system works
reliably" was the message). Confronted with "why" they were asking this
absurd
and absolute roll out, he claimed that "someone" (no further specification)
told him that there are "technical reasons" advising the addition of TLDs
one
by one. Indeed Jon Postel explained that this is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
His other plans are not less foolish: they want to split NSI into two
separate
fucntions: the Registry and a registrar that will compete for NSI's domain
names registrations with other registrars (all of us, for instance) on an
"eqaul base". How they can perform both fucntions and still allow the
comeptitors at the registrar level a n equal and fair access is something
that
indeed he was unable to explain in detail. Oh, and , by the way, this will
be
acomplished during next two years,- or two years and a half !!!
What does all this mean?
* NSI gets its costs reduced (no more $39 dikkars tzx), and that may be OK
for
the public. But its monopoly remains untouched for now, and likely so for a
long period. Its proposed "split" into the two fucntions is difficult to
understand but easy to evaluate: they will remain dominant in every possible
market.
* As for CORE the success of such a plan as it has been outlined represents
a
more than serious menace to its survival. In the best case CORE is seriously
weakened by the reduction in TLDs and its absurd rolling out. CORE
registrars
might eventually share .com, .org. and .net "one day", but with NSI
dominating
both ends of the business.
* As for the DNS in general, competition, the most echoed goal, will not
really emerge. CORE would be prevented from playing any effective
competition
to NSI with just one, two or three new TLDs. Its very survival, as that of
many Registrars would be seriously menaced.
* They pretend also to introduce comeptition among registries. It seems that
their ideal veiw is mappring TLDs onto registries (back to draft-postel?) on
a
"one-by-one" basis. Only that NSI wil keep its three current TLDs, and CORE
may get anything from one to five. Why other registries should manage only
one? And who decides the rules applying to this registries? what dispute
resolution mechnisme would apply to domain name conflicts, or conflicts with
IP rights, if any? And mapping TLDs to Registries may mean that we are back
to
the initial problem: Registries having monopoly power over TLDs. There are
too
many darks shadows in this part of the proposal, and I do confees that I
fail
to understand it completely with the infomation we've got so far.
* As for the Internet in general, this plan would mena moving form an
amorphous and unstructured self-orgnised Internet to a more stable
self-governed private-sector oriented Internet....BUT THROUGH A COUPLE OF
YEARS OF "INTERIM" US GOVERNMENT "OVERSIGHT", i.e., decisionmaking. As part
of
the Internet community, we cannot accept this unprecedented interventionist
claim (if they come in now, they will never step`out.We all now what
"interim"
means in bureaucrat's minds...). Form within, but more espcially form
outside
the U, this claim has to be denounced as completely illegitimate, and
absolutely incompatible with what the White House announced last July in
their
Framork for the Global Electronic Commerce. Then they were unvirsally
appluded. Now they have to be widely opposed.
I insist that some parts of what I am representing here may not exactly
correspond to the announed but unseen Green Paper. As the versions Ira has
told to different audinces vayr in some details, we think that he is also
testing our reactions.
Next Wednesday morning there will be a meeting between POC and Magaziner.
POC
will firnly express its refusal to the unfair changes there are being
proposed
for CORE and our hwole system. Let's see what comes otu of that, but be
prepared to start a campaing for putting all pressure on Magaziner in order
to
let him understand how unacceptable are some (most?) parts of his plan. Hold
your breath for the afternoon cocktail....
Indeed the real evaluation has to be done of the detailed Geen paper, as the
Four Points, as stated above bare a level of vagueness whtat could
accomodate
many final outcomes, some of them I believe could be compatible with the
interests of CORE in particular and increaed competition in general. But
there
are too many really dangerous and unacceptable ideas in what he heard during
this week-end.
Excuse me if this message is more obsucre and worst writeen than usual. I'm
stil too furious to care about style.
More to come.
Amadeu, in one of his worst POC duties to date.




-----End of forwarded message-----