Re: PAB Should we speak?

Jim Dixon (
Sat, 11 Jul 1998 15:07:15 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Bob Helfant wrote:

> Is there anyone on the list who wants to discuss separating PAB,CORE and
> POC? We have held on to a structure in the hopes of replacing NSI. This
> has not happened. Let us do what is most effective to increase the domain
> space without sacrificing stability.

If you are proposing separating the PAB and POC on the one hand from
CORE on the other, isn't this already happening? There seems to be a
steady drift in this direction.

What would seem to me to be more sensible would be an update to the
gTLD MOU to reflect the developments of the last year - especially, of
course, the White Paper.

Having said that, CORE on its own should be viable, so long as the NSF
contract isn't allowed to roll over without a clear assertion of rights by
a successor to IANA. If that happens, then it appears likely that NSI
will hang on to .COM/NET/ORG for a couple of years, and possibly bits of
that database forever - specifically, the billing information without
which the rest of the database isn't worth much.

To my mind it is urgent that some sort of successor to IANA be legally
formed quickly, so that it can assert its authority over the root name
servers, the .COM/NET/ORG database, and the other odds and ends that
NSI administers under the NSF contract well before that contract runs
out. Early September might be a viable target date.

One of the new corporation's first acts should be to direct NSI to
allow CORE access to the .COM/NET/ORG database. What we need is NSI
forced to become a CORE registrar and to compete on something like
an equal footing with other CORE members (I say "something like"
because NSI's vast illegitimate profits make it a formidable adversary
even if the market is otherwise open). Given the lack of time and
the general tone of the White Paper, this might not be possible, but
it is certainly a worthwhile objective.

Many of you will know that I believe the IFWP process
( is the only realistic way to rapidly create the
corporation which will give IANA a legal form. This series of three
regional meetings, with input from other discussions of the issues
involved, should be able to build the global consensus necessary for

Reading back over what I have written so far, I can summarize it
like this: splitting CORE away from the PAB and POC might be
sensible at this time, but it is far more important to create a
viable "new entity" in time to prevent NSI from keeping its
monopoly status. The objective should be to form the new entity
early enough to force Network Solutions to open up the .COM/NET/ORG
database to CORE. This makes CORE financially viable. Once CORE
has a revenue stream, then it makes sense to talk about spending time
rewriting the gTLD MOU to reflect the new reality, and possibly
spinning off CORE as an entity more or less independent of the PAB
and POC. Personally I would like to see many COREs, but that's
another discussion.

People involved in the PAB, POC, CORE, etc, should jump vigorously
into the IFWP process. We all have a stake in keeping that process
open, neutral, transparent, and fair. With good will, we can all
participate in building a compromise solution that benefits all of

By early September, please.

Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd 
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015