At 07:11 PM 1/28/98 -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>What's that Yeats said about the "worst are full of passionate intensity"?
>
>After all the he said/she said, they can/they can't, they will/they won't,
>consider these facts, and their inexorable consequences:
>
>1. No-one that I know of has claimed that Magaziner's plan would do away
>with domain name portability, which is clearly the main thing from the
>consumer's point of view -- the ability to take her domain name with her
>when she wants to change registrars. Magaziner in a personal
>correspondence told me I was completely wrong when I suggested that his
>plan would do away with domain name portability by setting up competing
>monopoly registries -- which means that all the registries have to
co-operate.
>
>2. If all the registries co-operate, it means that there has to be some
>kind of guidelines to ensure that all registries are interoperable, and
>that there is some way to deal with disputes between registrars (forget
>about disputes between SLD owners).
>
>3. If there are guidelines, that means that someone has to write those
>guidelines and enforce them. This is called "regulation".
>
>4. If Magaziner is willing and able to send CORE/POC into the wilderness,
>the only group that could provide this regulation is the U.S. Gov't itself.
>
>5. Ergo, a competing registry plan would mean, willy-nilly, that the the
>U.S. Gov't is planning to regulate the domain space itself, albeit
>"temporarily", whatever that means in Government terms.
>
>It is completely inescapable.
>
>Now, consider what the Government will have to do in order to implement its
>regulation:
>
>1. Pick a group of experts to come up with a plan. This group would then
>have to:
>2. Pick some names -- which won't please everyone
>3. Decide what to do about trademarks -- in concert with trademark holders,
>from all countries. Count on big input from trademark concerns.
>4. Come up with a dispute resolution policy that works for everyone around
>the world, and leaves the domain name space as free as possible from
>crippling litigation, while still preserving the right to go to court
>5. Decide what a registry would have to do, technically and from the point
>of view of operational fairness
>6. Decide on the criteria for choosing and regulating registrars so that
>they don't contribute to various evils such as cybersquatting, holding up
>domain holders for outrageous renewal fees, and so on.
>7. Deal with governmental interests, U.S. and foreign.
>8. Provide a method for the direct input of domain users
>9. Find a way to get input from everyone it could
>10. Make decisions and use Occam's Razor to decide how to change things in
>the face of valid criticism, and how to ignore dumb (if vociferous)
>commentary.
>
>Does this sound familiar? Right, it's IAHC/POC, now with a different name.
> Whatever they come up with, it will look a lot like what's in place now.
>It will just take a lot longer.
>
>If the triumphalist eDNSers are right, please look forward to another four
>years (because it will take at least twice as long) of the same process
>that the IAHC/POC has just been through. Except that this time, everything
>will be embroiled in all of the ludicrous soap-operas that can happen in
>Washington. We might all come up with a solution that pleases everyone
>except the distinguished Senator from XX, who, in return for his support of
>the President's budget, will insist that the whole thing get turned over to
>SAIC, or whoever...
>
>The big winner? Well, since all this won't happen overnight, it will be --
>inevitably, surprise, surprise, NSI.
>
>Happy now?
>
>Antony
>
>
>