Jay and all,
Jay is exactly correct here. We must have competition in the
REGISTRY arena as well as in the REGISTRAR arena. One without
the other is not true competition. ICANN's position is opposed to this,
as well as wanting to set the bar far to high and with far to restrictive
requirements for this to occur in a market driven fashion. They would
prefer a politically driven solution. This will not stand, and makes
for a divisive mechanism that is dangerous to the global market place.
Jay Fenello wrote:
> At 06:14 PM 3/21/99 , Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> >Jay,
> >
> >I agree, new names in the root would help a lot, it's something that needs
> >to be done sooner than later.
> >
> >However, until that time, we have NSI to deal with.
>
> Hi Antony,
>
> That is exactly the problem.
>
> Rather than fix the market failure (i.e.
> the lack of competitive registries with
> NSI), people want to fix the NSI problem.
>
> >I would like to know
> >your thoughts on the recent death of the InterNIC and the behavior of NSI.
> >Do you think that NSI owes anything to the stakeholders on the Internet? Or
> >do you believe that they are a lost case, a bad apple, and that competition
> >is the only method we have to correct their abdication of responsibility?
> >Or perhaps you don't believe they've abdicated anything? I respect your
> >opinion, I'd like to know.
>
> NSI has responsibilities:
> To their clients, to offer a good service
> at a good price.
>
> To their resellers, to honor their contractual
> obligations in mutually beneficial ways.
>
> To their shareholders, to provide a good
> return while limiting risks.
>
> To the U.S. government, to transition
> their cooperative agreement to a more
> permanent structure.
>
> And to the Internet stakeholders.
> Now, if you want to force NSI to place the interests of Internet stakeholders
> higher in
> the queue, you either have regulation or market
> mechanisms. I obviously favor the latter.
>
> >I would also like to know why you think that registrar competition is
> >"fake". ICANN certainly doesn't think that; NSI doesn't think that; none of
> >the registrars I know think that. Could you explain that?
>
> Fake probably isn't the best word I could
> have used. My point was that competition
> at the registrar level does not solve nor
> even address the concerns that exist with
> NSI's monopoly.
>
> Competition at the registry level does!
> Again, how many more years must we wait?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello
> President, Iperdome, Inc.
> 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
>
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Antony
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay
> >>Fenello
> >>Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 5:43 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dave Farber; Saul
> >>Hansell; Esther Dyson; Mike Roberts
> >>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Demise of Internic
> >>
> >>
> >>For years now, companies like Iperdome and
> >>IO Design have been calling for competition
> >>in the name space. Not fake competition, at
> >>the "registrar" level, but real competition,
> >>at the "registry" level.
> >>
> >>Instead, many have attempted to devolve NSI's
> >>monopoly through rules, regulations, and all
> >>sorts of other machinations. Now, people
> >>are complaining about the results.
> >>
> >>Competition *will* address these complaints.
> >>How many more years must we wait?
> >>
> >>Respectfully,
> >>
> >>Jay Fenello
> >>President, Iperdome, Inc.
> >>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
> >>
> >>
> >>At 02:56 PM 3/21/99 , Robert Raisch wrote:
> >>>I call for the immediate re-evaluation of Network Solutions contract and a
> >>>further hastening of the creation of an infrastructure of competitive
> >>>registrars. Each moment we delay in doing so only furthers
> >>Network Solutions
> >>>iron grip on the market, causing irreparable damage to competition.
> >>>
> >>>What is most egregous about this recent action is that by bundling further
> >>>services in e-commerce, web, and e-mail hosting, with their
> >>existing domain
> >>>name registration services, Network Solutions seeks to leverage
> >>its current
> >>>market monopoly position unfairly against those providing the
> >>same services
> >>>but lacking government-sanctioned control of the market. This is why
> >>>unchecked monopolies are so dangerous.
> >>>
> >>>Futhermore, Network Solutions seeks to butress its shaky future market
> >>>position by taking acts today contrived to confuse the consumer
> >>into believing
> >>>it *is* the Internic. As such, this recent highjacking of the Internic is
> >>>nothing but simple theft, since I - and every other U.S. taxpayer
> >>- paid for
> >>>the creation of Internic's brand value, now held hostage.
> >>>
> >>>It is plain to me that we must act quickly to quell this rape of
> >>the market.
> >>>If we do not, we sanction Network Solution's further market
> >>entrenchment; one
> >>>built so firmly and rigidly into the existing infrastructure as
> >>to effectively
> >>>destroy any possibility for real competition.
> >>>
> >>>This is yet another of the dangers I spoke of in 1993, at the 26th IETF
> >>>meeting in Colombus, Ohio, when Internic was formed and Network
> >>Solutions was
> >>>handed this power by our government.
> >>>--
> >>>Robert Raisch, Internet Hired Gun <http://www.raisch.com>
> >>>First snow, then silence-This thousand dollar screen-dies so beautifully.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
