NSI Slaps ISPs and their concerns in the face This statement has been posted to the NSI & Internic News Summary page at http://www.dso.net/internic/ along with links to other related stories. On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:58:29 -0400, Christopher Clough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >See page at http://rs.internic.net >for consumer information on >domain name system changes. >Page has links to Network Solutions, >NTIA and ICANN. This is unacceptable. NSI has done NOTHING by doing this. Over one week ago I presented a suggestion to Chuck Gomes that would of placated almost all of the concerns of ISPs and others by restoring a neutral registration services only site. It appears NSI has ignored this suggestion, and decided to basically tell ISPs that we are not interested in your concerns and problems. This is an affront to every ISP who is required to funnel their customers' business to NSI. NSI had an opportunity to show ISPs around the world that they cared about their concerns and want to continue a positive working relationship that met both of their needs. What they have done now is slap them in the face. The creation of a neutral site would of met the needs of the ISPs concerned about their users being targeted with advertising of which they have no control when they need registration related information or services, and the needs of NSI who reaps millions of dollars in business not just from them as a group, but from many of them individually. NSI can be guaranteed one thing, one of more of the "prospective new registries" WILL do this. They WILL see the concerns of ISPs as a great marketing opportunity, and NSI will see a cut in their revenue that they obviously have not planned for. And when new TLDs are introduced, these same ISPs will take the initiative to funnel their customers into using them, to prevent NSI from reaping the benefit of ANY of their business. That is how bad this affront to their concerns is. NSI has violated the spirit as well as the word of the co-operative agreement, and the USG MUST require them to repair it. If they don't, the USG has a recourse, and NSI must be made to understand that this recourse CAN be used. NSI has no legal basis for requiring the USG to continue permitting them to operate the A root-server or the com/net/org registry, especially when NSI has violated both the word and spirit of the agreement that grants them this privelege. The DOC, NTIA, and ICANN need to assert themselves and stop letting NSI dictate to them how things are going to be. They have told us in the community that they will continue oversight for at least 2 years to guarantee the following of the rules they have placed this process under. If you do not enforce them now, what trust can we hold in you? On the Isp-Tech forum, even NSI premier partners have been expressing great dissatisfaction with NSI's not addressing their concerns over this action by NSI. These are premier partners, who are responsible for millions of dollars of NSI business annually EACH. NSI is still in talks with the USG. It is time for all of those with an interest and a stake in this process to let the US Government Department of Commerce and the ICANN, as well as NSI itself, know exactly how they feel about this. Relevent email address and web addresses are posted below for those who would seek to do this. US Government Contacts : US Dept of Commerce - http://www.doc.gov/ Email Contacts : Secretary of Commerce Elliott Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> National Telecommunications and Information Administration - http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ Email Contacts : Office of International Affairs: Becky Burr Associate Administrator Office of International Affairs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karen Rose Office of International Affairs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICANN Contacts : International Corporation of Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) - http://www.icann.org Email Contacts: General Comments [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have continued to object to NSI's policy with regards to this, and despite NSI's statements that criticisms are coming from prospective competitors, this is indeed NOT the case. Neither DSo Internet, nor the ISPs who have participated in discussions of which DSo Internet has been a participant, are prospective competitors, that is until NSI decided to start advertising commercial services which compete directly with the services ISPs offer. NSI tries to paint the criticisms as if they are coming from those who have an axe to grind against NSI, and this is most definitely NOT the case. This coloring of our criticisms by NSI is a blatent falsehoold. Indeed, I have myself been a defender of much of what NSI has done in the past, and have been colored by those who seek to villianize NSI no matter the reason as an "NSI apologist." Rather, I am an interested stakeholder, operating an Internet Service business, who believes that criticism should only come where it is actually warranted, as it is in this situation. NSI needs to stop trying to throw crumbs to resolve these criticisms and start taking real steps to address these concerns. The only way that I can see to do this is to restore the neutral Internic.net site and leave it there as a public resource. NSI can still use its powerful marketing campaigns (who hasn't seen their commercials?) and affiliate programs and other online promotions to market it's Network Solutions website and services, and does not need to take advantage of the Internic.net domain. The USGovt owns the trademark on the term Internic, it needs to use this legal position to force NSI to act as a responsible member of the Internet Community and restore the neutral, advertisement free resource that all of us have come to use, value, and depend on. Anything short of that is an affront to the very community principles NSI has claimed to stand for during the last year of domain policy discussions. I would urge EVERYONE who agrees with this position to email all of the contacts listed above immediately, and for those in foreign countries to get your government AND your ccTLD national registry to also apply as much pressure as possible to force a restoration of this site. -- William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] General Manager, DSo Internet Services Fledgling Free Email Service comes under Trademark attack http://www.intermail.net
