Stef and all,
Einar Stefferud wrote:
> Hi Antony -- I am having a lot of difficulty with the fact that you
> opened this thread with an accusation that I am acting in favor of NSI
> for conflict of interest reasons, which is very much like asking when
> I am going to stop beating my wife. Of course I am not gong to
> stop;-)...
Well I wouldn't take Antony too seriously Stef, as this seems to
be on of his usual mantra rants.
>
>
> I understand your point in general, but I have yet to see with enough
> clarity what has actually happened in the present instance.
>
> Was it part of the NTIA/NSI Amendment 11? Or was it not?
It was.
>
>
> Has this not been in the wind for some period of time, that NSI was
> going to have to (perhaps is obligated to) stop publishing the whois
> and internic information on all registrants in the registry?
Yes they were. ANd it appears that they have decided to turn the
screws done a bit more for obvious and somewhat good reasons.
>
>
> My sense of all this, from stuff published some time ago, is that the
> NSI registry is only going to make public who is the registrar for any
> NSI registered SLD, and that the registrars will all make public what
> they please, and of course, what their customers want to be made
> public.
Exactly correct. And also NSI annouced on February that they would
be in compliance completely with amendment 11 at the behest of
Becky Burr and the NTIA. This is what they have essentially done.
> So, NSI, acting also as a registrar will be obligated to
> provide some public whois information for the registrants that it
> registers as a registrar, will they not?
Yes, and they are complying with that to the letter.
>
>
> Or are none if the Registrars going to publish such information on
> registrants? I think it would be a good thing if someone would
> unravel the whole story instead of making accusations on a less than
> the whole story.
The whole story is known all be it not been released in one comprehensive
single statement.
>
>
> It has been my impression that all this is part of the Ammendment 11
> deal NSI cut with NTIA to split the Registrars from the Registry. A
> major issue in that deal is that if all this information is made
> available to all registrars, there might be a free for all for
> aggressive Registrars to go into the SLAMMING business (ala long
> distance phone services) with claims of the right to transfer specific
> registrant accounts being lodged with NSI, who will have a difficult
> time validating the account transfer claims.
Good point, and it should be well taken.
>
>
> Frankly, this whole idea of "solving the NSI problem" with regulation
> requiring separation of registry/registrar businesses is bogus and now
> we see some of the unintended consequences of that separation.
>
> Others consequences will include greater costs of operation to effect
> the separation and much greater complexity of three party
> relationships in place of two party relationships.
>
> Quite frankly, as a member of the NSI Registry Advisory Board, but not
> as a spokesperson for NSI, I am asking hard questions about how well
> anyone, including NSI, NTIA, and ICANN, understand the differences
> between the old 2 party and the new 3 party relationships that are to
> be required between registrants, registrars and registries.
>
> A major factor has to do with three party trust requirements and the
> vastly larger opportunity set for passing the blame for things to
> other parties and then sorting out confused situations where blame has
> been passed on inappropriately.
>
> All this information hiding stuff is part of that set of more
> difficult 3 party relationships that are being imposed as the
> regulatory cure for NSI under the US Govt's created Market Structure
> Failure Monopoly situation.
>
> This is what looks to me like "Auguring In" as things get more and
> more complicated with each turn of the regulatory screw.
>
> My preferred solution is to back out of the regulatory solution before
> it is augured in past the point of no return. And I propose that this
> be done by quickly opening up the root to add new gTLDs.
New gTLD's is only part of the solution. As Jay F. put it. without
additional REGISTRIES new gTLD's and new additional Registrars
will only make the existing problem more complex and a bigger mess
to clean up.
>
>
> So, to more directly answer your challenge to my possibility of
> responding out of a conflict of interest, I do not see my meta level
> view of things as becoming a shelter for protection of NSI
> misbehavior.
I am not sure that this is a problem with misbehavior completely on the
part of NSI. The USG is partly to blame here as well.
>
>
> As for the specific INTERNIC related actions you are targeting at the
> moment, I still do not fully understand what happened or what
> REGISTRAR information has been made unavailable, and whether these
> changes are included inside of the Cooperative Agreement Ammendment
> 11, or outside of it.
There hasn't been ANY REGISTRAR information been made unavailable
at all. The fact that Creation Dates on current registrations is no longer
displayable through NSI whois is necessary in order t both thwart
Domain Name highjackers and to also protect those DN holders
from predatory practices of some of those TM legal sharks looking for
some fresh meat.
>
>
> So, I find it really hard to respond directly to your question. There
> are several implied questions in what I have written here. Perhaps
> you and parties at NSI can shed some light on them. In particular, I
> would like to know whether this INTERNIC change that you are
> challenging is part of Ammendment 11!
>
> I have a strong suspicion that it is a natural fallout (yet another
> unintended consequence) of Ammendment 11 and the ICANN Registrar
> Certification scheme. As best I can tell, ICANN has been tasked by
> NTIA to control the selection of all registrars who will handle
> registrations in the NSI registries.
Yes in part this seems to be the direction that ICANN is taking (Without
stakeholder support BTW), and is the single flaw in that scheme. WIthout
multiple REGISTRIES, such a scheme cannot provide for true competition
in the DNS industry.
> What this arrangement forces NSI
> to do is not at all clear to me. But, clearly NSI is not in position
> now to control the selection of Registrars that they will be forced to
> Trust, whether the selected registrars are trustworthy or not.
>
> For this to work, NSI is going to have to build some kind of trustable
> buffer to insulate NSI from the ICANN selected Registrars, which NSI
> must trust, but ICANN need not trust. Freankly, I do not know how on
> can safely build a business on such arrangements.
Completely agreed here Stef....
>
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> >From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:44:22 -0500:
> }
> }Actually, Stef, I agree with you about the necessity of new gTLDs in the
> }root. I don't think that's controversial. In fact, I dare you to find
> }anyone who disagrees with that (though you may find some variation on how
> }long it should take, and how).
> }
> }What I'm interested in knowing is not what is to be done about the root of
> }the problem, pun intended, but about NSI's unannounced and damaging (to any
> }competitor) evisceration of the InterNIC.
> }
> }To be honest, I'm especially interested to find out if those people who've
> }been taking NSI travel and accommodation money are muzzling themselves over
> }what seems to me (and plenty of others) to be a clear case of abuse of
> }monopoly power.
> }
> }So far everyone who's been very eager to denounce the perfidies of ICANN,
> }which to date hasn't done, and hasn't been able to do, anything one way or
> }the other to improve or disturb business on the Internet, has been noticeably
> }silent, or has retreated into vague statements of principle. I don't
> }believe NSI has sent out any "directives" to its "operatives", but
> }self-censorship is a funny and insidious thing. Any decent social history
> }of the Eastern Bloc will confirm that. I recall seeing messages from you
> }recently about how you criticized NSI when it did something wrong, and
> }supported it when it did something right.
> }
> }So I say to you, either criticize them if you think what they did is wrong,
> }or tell me why you think it's the right thing.
> }
> }Antony
> }
> }>-----Original Message-----
> }>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:57 PM
> }>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>
> }>
> }>Hi Antony -- Actually, some people see me as being quite diplomatic
> }>much of the time;-)... Some other people find this idea to be quite
> }>surprising;-)...
> }>
> }>I found some additional context on the IFWP list, and have just
> }>replied there, with a clear statement that the real problem is,
> }>following up on Jay's comments, that the US Govt and ICANN, apparently
> }>conspiring to maintain the current market structure failure in their
> }>interests of justifying the need for World Wide DNS Services
> }>Regulation.
> }>
> }>In that sense, this entire thing is going in the wrong direction, and
> }>beating on NSI is not helpful. NSI is actually a very happy victim
> }>(in terms of prospective sort term profits) but on the other hand, a
> }>very unhappy victim (in terms of long terms prospects of increasing
> }>levels of regulatory confinement).
> }>
> }>NSI (in my personal, unverified opinion) wants InterRegistry
> }>Competition, as do most of the rest of us, in place of Industrial
> }>Strength Global Regulation of the Use of Names in the Internet
> }>Communications System.
> }>
> }>So, until I learn more about what has happened with the Internic, my
> }>opinion is that what you are complaining about is simply another
> }>unexpected disfunctional result of DNS regulation!
> }>
> }>What we need is action to resolve the primary problem and stop spending
> }>all our efforts trying to corral the unintended consequences of
> }>inappropriate regulatory actions intended to solve the problems by
> }>treating the symptoms of previous bad regulatory actions!
> }>
> }>This whole DNS MESS can only spiral down into a terrible abyss if we
> }>continue on the current path, which his in fact, not caused by NSI's
> }>actions. NSI is not the regulator here!
> }>
> }>You are blaming the wrong party.
> }>
> }>You should be targeting the regulators!
> }>
> }>Cheers...\Stef
> }>
> }>>From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:26:25 -0500:
> }>}
> }>}Stef,
> }>}
> }>}You are -- can I say it? -- uncharacteristically diplomatic. My basic
> }>}feeling is that the InterNIC qua InterNIC, that is, the
> }>repository of public
> }>}Internet information (whois, rfcs, etc etc) has been rerouted to a
> }>}commercial site, and it's fairly obvious to me at least that this
> }>is done to
> }>}the detriment of all Internet users with the exception of Network
> }>Solutions.
> }>}
> }>}You have been very vocal in the past about openness of process.
> }>This is the
> }>}biggest practical change in the domain name arena in quite some
> }>time, and it
> }>}was done over a weekend without the slightest warning.
> }>}
> }>}What context exactly are you looking for?
> }>}
> }>}Antony
> }>}
> }>}>-----Original Message-----
> }>}>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>}>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 12:51 PM
> }>}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>}>
> }>}>
> }>}>Hi Antony --
> }>}>
> }>}>Of course, NSI is not able to respond as a company like you and I and
> }>}>many others can over a weekend;-)...
> }>}>
> }>}>I am certainly concerned and want to understand more about it, but so
> }>}>far neither you nor anyone else has provided me with pointers to the
> }>}>more complete explanation of what you are talking about.
> }>}>
> }>}>So, I await further information before joining you in your
> }>}>condemnation. I generally try to avoid context free arguments;-)...
> }>}>Nothing personal. I just don't yet understand the issues at hand.
> }>}>
> }>}>Cheers...\Stef
> }>}>
> }>}>>From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:55:44 -0500:
> }>}>}
> }>}>}Einar,
> }>}>}
> }>}>}He said thank you, he'd pass it on to management. As someone
> }>}>said, there's
> }>}>}a common translation for that.
> }>}>}
> }>}>}Antony
> }>}>}
> }>}>}>-----Original Message-----
> }>}>}>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Einar Stefferud
> }>}>}>Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 2:09 AM
> }>}>}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>Hello Antony -
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>At this point, it seems fair to me to await an NSI response to your
> }>}>}>message to Chuck Gomes.
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>In the meantime, can you point us at some more information, such as
> }>}>}>the announcements or event reports that you seem to be responding to?
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>Thanks...\Stef
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}>>From your message Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:52:57 -0500:
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>}Dan,
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>}I replied to Chuck Gomes with my thoughts on why this was monopolistic
> }>}>}>}behavior, and I copied it to this list.
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>}I wonder if you disagree.
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>}Antony
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>}>-----Original Message-----
> }>}>}>}>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>}>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Steinberg
> }>}>}>}>Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 9:01 AM
> }>}>}>}>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>}>Subject: Re: NSI's actions
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>I have followed this thread with some (but not a lot of) interest.
> }>}>}>}>You will notice that I have not commented, and that I have not
> }>}>}>}>hesitated to criticize NSI in the past. Here is why. I comment when
> }>}>}>}>I find major harm is being done. To me major harm can be actions
> }>}>}>}>against a single entity or a series of actions against smaller
> }>}>}>}>entities (the classic class-action situation).
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>Applying that test, I have criticized NSI frequently for:
> }>}>}>}>* their (insert adjective) flawed dispute policy
> }>}>}>}>* their silence on the lists and other public fora (since corrected)
> }>}>}>}>* their tendency to private solutions not open source internet-type
> }>}>}>}> thingies
> }>}>}>}>* lack of public input into their policies
> }>}>}>}>* poor (or nonexistent) communication of changes and/or system
> }>}>}>}> problems
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>Of the above, the current action appears to closely fit the last one.
> }>}>}>}>But so many people have already commented that I will not bother. I
> }>}>}>}>make it a point of avoiding the 'me too', 'me three'
> }>}>}>}>syndrome. I have to have something new to say. And, I also have
> }>}>}>}>to feel that the subject is important.
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>As for "Macchiavellian monopolist", I am afraid I don't have a warm
> }>}>}>}>fuzzy feeling of exactly what wrong is being done by NSI, such that I
> }>}>}>}>should comment. That phrase is pretty much content-free. So you had
> }>}>}>}>better explain your position some more before you can expect me to
> }>}>}>}>make any comments. And in the end, I may choose not to. Not because
> }>}>}>}>of any (perceived) lack of independence. Simply because what you feel
> }>}>}>}>is important may not be what I feel is important.
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> }>}>}>}>>
> }>}>}>}>> OK, you guys on this list who have been funded to some extent by
> }>}>}>}>> NSI, now's the time to show you're independent, and that the
> }>}>}>}>> didn't really affect your judgment or independence or censor
> }>}>}>}>> your speech.
> }>}>}>}>>
> }>}>}>}>> What they've done today, in pointing the InterNIC traffic to
> }>}>}>}>> networksolutions.com, is the work of a Macchiavellian
> }>}>}>}>> monopolist. There's just nothing else to be said about it.
> }>}>}>}>> It's a kick in the teeth to anyone who is looking for
> }>}>}>}>> competition in .com, .net, and .org.
> }>}>}>}>>
> }>}>}>}>> Speak up now, or say why you won't.
> }>}>}>}>>
> }>}>}>}>> Antony
> }>}>}>}>>
> }>}>}>}>> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> }>}>}>}>> Boundary, n. In political geography, an
> }>}>}>}>> imaginary line between two nations, separating
> }>}>}>}>> the imaginary rights of one from the imaginary
> }>}>}>}>> rights of another. -- Ambrose Bierce, The
> }>}>}>}>> Devil's Dictionary
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>--
> }>}>}>}>Dan Steinberg
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> }>}>}>}>35, du Ravin
> }>}>}>}>Box 532, RR1 phone: (613) 794-5356
> }>}>}>}>Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
> }>}>}>}>J0X 1N0 e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> }>}>}>}>
> }>}>}>}
> }>}>}>
> }>}>}
> }>}>
> }>}
> }>
> }
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
