Hi Ken -- I am afraid that your barragge of unanwerable questions,
with no effort to answer my rather straightforward questions, simply
leaves our discussion derailed.
So, I will take your point that you do not want to discuss what I want
to discuss, and weill just retirte to the sidelines and see what
happens next to your strong desires for a top down imposed set of
strong and enforces ethical standards on the whole DNS structure.
I wish you all great good luck, but expect your scheme to crash and
burn. I certainly cannot support it.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 16 Feb 1999 07:43:08 -0500:
}
}hello stef...
}
}your answers to some of the questions below were not very clear.
}
}1. are you saying that you don't have a position on a code of ethics for
}registrars
}2. rather than coming back to me with questions... are you reluctant to
}state your personal position on the question of registrar accreditation ?
}3. i take your answer to the last question to mean that you feel it is up to
}the registry to decide what information to provide. is that correct ?. does
}that mean that if a registry also acts as a registrar that they could elect
}not to provide appropriate data to assure "portability". are you telling me
}that information collected by registries in this circumstance is a form of
}"customer list" ? (funny.. i would have assumed that this data was not
}proprietary to the registry)
}
}a point of elaboration here ... the comments regarding item number 3 are
}related only to GTLD's and future GTLD's and do not necessarily have
}application with CCtld's
}
}best wishes
}
}ken
}-----Original Message-----
}From: Einar Stefferud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson
}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:59 AM
}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority
}
}
}>Hi Ken -- Your questrions need some additonal context before the
}> answers can make any sense..
}>
}>Are we talking about registrars for only registries that are monoplies
}>like NSI, or totally shared registeries ala CORE, or all registries
}>including all ccTLDs and new gTLDs?
}>
}>Will all TLD registries be required to operate as shared registries
}>the same way that NSI is required, or the way POC/PAB/CORE plans to
}>operate shared registries?
}>
}>Are you going to propote one size fits all for all rgions, segments
}>and nations?
}>
}>If not, what do you have in mind?
}>
}>>From your message Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:56:41 -0500:
}>}
}>}
}>}-----Original Message-----
}>}From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Becky Burr
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mike
}Roberts
}>}<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
}>}Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 1:41 PM
}>}Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Central Authority is be Dangerous
}>}
}>}
}>}hello jay:
}>}
}>}i would appreciate some further elightenment in light of your comments
}>}below:
}>}
}>}1.who do you believe has the "rights" to access to the IP data ? what is
}>}your definition of "IPdata" ?
}>
}>
}>}2.who do believe should be accrediting registrars and the development of
}>}mechanisms to insure that they operate in "the best interest of the
}>}internet" ?
}>
}>Who indeed Ken? Do you believe that every registrar must be
}>accredited. Does this include all ISPs that bundle registrar services
}>into their service packages? Are customers going to be releieved of
}>all needs to demand that their registrars acti in the interests of
}>their customers? If yes, how are you gong to enforce your standards
}>of service? Who is going to pay for the enforcement system?
}>
}>}3.should we have have a code of conduct for registrars ?
}>}
}>
}>I gather that you assume the answer is yes? Why do you assume this?
}>
}>}4.how do you feel we should insure that there is equity in situations
}where
}>}the registry also competes at the registrar level ?
}>
}>What is wrong with volumen discount plans for Registrars?
}>
}>}5.how do we insure "portability" so that domain name holders are assured
}>}that they will be provided adequate information on alternatives available
}to
}>}them for future registration servicing ?
}>
}>Why is this such a hard problem. Why cannot this be left as a
}>prioduct differenctiation feature for registrars? Why does all this
}>control have to be imposed from the top?
}>
}>}
}>}best wishes
}>}
}>}ken stubbs
}>}
}>
}>Just checking;-)...\Stef
}>
}>}
}>}>ICANN has greatly exceeded its mandate to deal with the
}>}>NSI monopoly. It appears to have established an entire
}>}>business model for all ICANN registrars, one that makes
}>}>ICANN the owner of all IP data, and assesses a tax on
}>}>all registrants without *any* checks and balances.
}>}>
}>}>Respectfully,
}>}>
}>}>Jay Fenello
}>}>President, Iperdome, Inc.
}>}>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}>}>
}>}>
}>}
}>
}
