🚀 go-pugleaf

At 05:00 PM 1/28/98 -0500, Robert Shaw wrote:
>>      NEW YORK, January 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Ira Magaziner, President
Clinton's 
>> senior technical policy advisor, yesterday hosted a Commerce Department
meeting 
>> with a group of domain name industry pioneers to discuss the U.S.
Government's 
>> long awaited green paper on the Domain Name System.
>>      Key features of the green paper include the establishment of a
non-profit 
>> corporation to assume the supervisory role of IP address assignments,
management 
>> of the main DNS root server, protocol issues, and TLD policy.  This new
entity would 
>
>Yes, this is IANA continuing to do the role it has always done. 

Of course, but the composition of IANA would supposedly differ
substantially from what it is today.  An IANA with a much broader base of
representation has a better chance of managing its functions effectively
than the present version.

And discussions have
>been going on for a long time about doing this so it is not really news.

What's new is that the change in composition might actually happen in the
relatively near future.  Before it was just a bunch of "dissidents"
clamoring for such a change.
>
>> be composed of a broad, cross-section of Internet stakeholders, and
would be 
>> representative in nature.  The paper also features an orderly transition
to this 
>> new structure.
>
>Sounds nice but, of course, as we've seen in trying to find a structure
for POC,
>it's far easier to say than to do. 

It's not rocket science either.  There are any number of possibilities that
would likely be workable in practice.  

I shall look forward to the detailed proposal
>which will undoubtedly get the same sort of flak that we got about the POC
structure.

>From the looks of it, one could easily get the impression that the POC
structure was created specifically for the purpose of arousing opposition.
(I realize that can't possibly be the case, but the opposition was
predictable enough to lots of people.)  Almost anything the Green Paper
comes up with has a better chance of success than the POC structure, which
is about as "top-down" a power structure as they come.  

>
POC has met with Ira several 
>times but at the most recent meeting last week - we asked him directly "do
you think there 
>should be monopoly registrars". The answer was an unequivacal "no". So Ira
has agreed with 
>the IAHC and POC have said all along - and just the opposite of what you
have been 
>arguing for ages. 

I think you are seriously misinterpreting Ira's words if you think they
mean that he agrees with the IAHC and POC.  CORE has been called a
"monopoly registrar" about as often as any other would-be registrar.  How
do you know his answer didn't mean that he objected to CORE having a
monopoly over the registration of TLDs?  Given the speculation about the
contents of the Green Paper, this seems like a more plausible
interpretation than the one you suggest.  
>
>As far as "Significant Intellectual Property rights"? What does this mean?
Who granted
>you such global rights? Since there are no such rights, I don't see how
you can assert
>them. 

The same argument could be made with respect to CORE.  Who gave CORE the
right to a monopoly on .firm, .web etc.?
>
>>      The actual attendees were a collection of diverse individuals who
have been working 
>> together to effect a positive decision within the U.S. Government's
process for the past 
>> several months.
>>      Just about the only surprise discussed at the meeting were the
continued comments by 
>> CORE that they will fight the U.S. Government on this issue.  "While
surprising, it certainly 
>> isn't unexpected.  The leadership of POC and CORE have consistently
refused to work towards 
>> a consensus with anyone who didn't support their view" said Fenello.
>
>Oh please.... Iperdome aka Jay Fenello has never done anything but forward
around anything
>inflammatory or offensive to the IAHC or POC/CORE you can find and issue
bizarre press 
>releases like this. 

It doesn't look particularly bizarre to me.  Par for the course for a press
release.

You have never done anything in the slightest form that supports reaching 
>consensus. Your mantra has been and has always been "I want to have
monopoly registration 
>rights to .per" and that's it. Now that it's clear that Ira/USG also
disagrees with you, 
>have you changed your tune?

I don't know if Ira/USG does or does not disagree with Jay, but if you're
relying on your Ira quote above I'd say you're involved in some wishful
thinking.  



*********************************************************
Robert L. Shearing                voice: +1-650-482-2840 	
President/CEO                       fax: +1-650-482-2844
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.              http://www.priori.net

"The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
*********************************************************