Ed and all,
Ed Gerck wrote:
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Please note that in the intersubjective view it is perfectly acceptable to be in
> opposition to this -- if you consider that only a legal persona could own a domain
>(as
> with firearms sales in certain jurisdictions). However, and this was my point, NSI
>does NOT
> consider so. Thus, we must consider what they consider ;-)
Recent court decisions in the US would significantly disagree with your assertion
here Ed as it is related to NSI.
>
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Fine and good but this is off-topic. I am not discussing the stage -- I am stating
>it.
Understood compleatly here Ed, and hence my comment (Above). I think
that you may have not completely understood my point entirely. "The Stage"
that you are stating is indeed, exactly the point...
> In
> that, we all know that there are enough topics even here that are discussing the
>stage --
> but not even ONE that is trying to view what would happen when and if that stage is
>used.
What??? Of course we are and have been for some 4 years.
>
> This is the exercize I am proposing -- motivated by a practical case and practical
>rules
> being set forth.
Agreed. And again this is what have been under discussion for some 4 years...
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> The "not" option is off-topic here, Jeff. That is why I was very careful and set the
>stage
> first -- it is NSI all the way in this scenario.
Why is the "NOT" off topic? Please elaborate.
> I also recall that there are plenty of
> other threads that discuss other options and I would be happy to discuss them with
>you
> there. So, it is nothing personal ;-)
Nothing personal taken. Indeed as has been stated in THIS THREAD, other
options are and have been available for some time. They are unfortunately not well
developed.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, NSI will be *conceptually* "split" into NSI-Registry and NSI-Registrar. Please
>read
> again -- and note that in the current scenario-to-be I can no longer mention NSI,
>just the
> two entities derived from it:
I understood you point entirely Ed. I think you are missing my counter point
as it relates to this thread and in reality. That being that though NSI has
"FUNCTIONALLY" separated out Registry and Registrar, they are still one in the
same legal and actual entity, although functionally they will operate
separately.
>
>
> "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)."
Ahhhh, I see the flaw in your argument or thinking here more clearly now. It
is NOT true that NSI will cease to exist as sole REGISTRY. They will,
however cease to exist as sole Registrar.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> But not necessarily by Nevada law, no? As you may recall, there are also
>considerable
> differences between legal doctrines used in each US State -- not only in law. For
>example,
> some States consider that if I sell you a horse that I say is young, even though its
>teeth
> are clearly long and old, and you buy it, then I am not liable under tort law
>because you
> did not exert your due dilligence.
You state a condition as a qualifier in your example here Ed, that changes
the potential result of the outcome significantly and therefore makes this example
not reasonably applicable as it relates to DN registration or ownership, that
being, " you did not exert your due diligence".
> However, other US States may consider that you had no obligation to even verify my
> statements and were entitled to rely on them as they were said.
As you may or may not know, a verbal condition or contract is NOT legally
binding... Hence you example here as it relates to my original comment,
in not relevant.
> For a review on this, please see the discussions on "reasonable reliance", "justified
> reliance", "actual reliance", etc. that I present in
>http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.htm --
> including the excellent reference study that I cite from a recent US Supreme Court
>decision
> that revolved around this topic.
>
> > 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...
>
> Again, Jeff, off-topic to the objective here.
Again Ed, I strongly disagree as it relates to this topic dead on. (See
previous comments on this reply above for more detail)
> However, I would be happy to take up this
> issue in another thread and perhaps we can model what is really needed for what
> assumptions. Again, the objective here is to do a "Gedankenexperiment" and follow
>along the
> given directives, with a practical case -- are the directives workable? what do
>they imply?
> what do they negate? what attacks can one still have? can one avoid them in the
>*current*
> model? where will this take us? is it fair?
All good questions and have been ask over and over again regarding this sort of
topic many times, as well as answered in many different fashions in the past
several years. Hence my original suggestion for you to carefully review
relative archives....
>
>
> In other words, I thought this thread could spank the problem while other threads
>spank the
> fools ... whatever they may be in an intersubjective view ;-)
>
> 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
