Ed and all,
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Phil Howard wrote:
>
> > Troy Davis wrote:
> >
> > > That's fair. The problem that needs to be corrected, then, is
> > > lack of authentication to confirm that the person sending the fax really is
> > > the registrant (personal/sole proprietorship) or an agent of the registrant
> > > (corporation).
> > >....
> > > Even in the case of personal domains, NSI will need to know that Joe Blow is
> > > really the Joe Blow who registered joeblow.org.
> >
> > NSI does not need to know that they are talking to the real Joe Blow.
>
> Agreed -- and, who is the "real Joe Blow" anyway? The only thing that NSI currently
> needs to rely upon is that they are talking to the *same* "Joe Blow" -- who may
> actually be also called Mary by birth and this is not relevant.
Agreed. But there has been much debate and discussion in opposition to
this however. Most specifically from Stef, William Walsh, Chris Ambler,
and Patrick Greenwell.
>
>
> > They
> > only need to know that they are dealing with a continuous chain of authority
> > over the domain, or identify where that chain broke.
>
> But, how do you view this in terms of the coming Shared Registry? I would like to
> have your (and the list's) input on this -- which is everyone's next future. Let me
> recall the stage around which we spin here, under the current 2-party thin-registry
> model being implemented by ICANN.
Well our [INEGroup's] Input is well known, See ICANN mailing list archives
for more detail. However in short, I would say that the current model and
more specifically restrictions that ICANN would impose without Stakeholder
approval from the White Paper's "Bottom-up" requirement, is one that is
seriously flawed in that it does not provide for real competition as there
is still only ONE registry, with multiple registrars under the imposed
control of the ICANN, with out, as I stated, Stakeholder approval... This is
a sinerio for making for worse problems that is perceived than what we
already have with NSI and it's partnership program with other contracted
registrars.
>
>
> As we all know, NSI will cease to exist as the sole .com/.org./.net/.edu
> Registry/Registrar (ie, the NSI/InterNIC) and we will have two entities: one
> NSI-Registry (already announced as www.nsiregistry.com) plus one NSI-Registrar (the
> internic.net to nsi.com changeover). At the same time, ICANN is selecting other
> competing Registrars that will share that Registry -- specifically defining that the
> Registrar is the one that owns the authority over the domain to the Registry, NOT
> the Registrant. Further, the NSI-Registry will only deal with the Registrars and
> never with any Registrant.
You conclusion here is only partly true. It will depend on whether you
are a NSI customer or not.
>
>
> Thus, in this scenario, since "Joe Blow" is the Registrant -- NSI-Registry does not
> deal with Joe Blow and NSI-Registry has no way of verifying if that "Joe Blow" is
> even the same "Joe Blow". This means that NSI-Registry has no power and thus no
> liability here.
In essence this is partly true, but only partly, in that NSI will still be a
registrar through a different entity.
> The Registrar would have, but different Registrars may follow
> different rules -- in fact, the same Registrar may even have different contractual
> duties and liabilities for their Registrants. And, legally, the only entity that
> can mandate similar rules to Registrars is ICANN --- since they are the *only* ones
> that may choose and supervise the Registrars, not NSI. However, ICANN can only
> enforce what lies within its jurisdiction -- as a California Corporation.
Not completely correct here either Ed. A California is within the
confines of the United States, it is also bound by US law as well.. However
this is a minor point. The single biggest problem as I eluded to above
is that as Jay F. has pointed out, there is still only ONE registry!!
Without multiple Registries, you cannot have true competition, only
an assemblance of such. In other words without new TLD's and separate
Registries as well as registrars for those TLD's you cannot have a
competitive market except at the Registrar level. This is a contrivance,
nothing more...
>
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Dr.rer.nat. E.
> Gerck
> [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
