Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> reynolds:
>
> >
> >As has Gordon, if he really believes that NSI can simply walk
> away from the
> >Cooperative Agreement. Such an action would be a disaster for all
> >concerned, and would most assuredly *not* leave NSI in control
> of either the
> >root or .com/.net/.org when the smoke cleared.
>
> cook
>
> defend your assertion ...cites from appropriate case law or US
> administrative code please.
>
Why should I? You have provided no comparable citations that would indicate
that NSI has the right to repudiate its legal agreement with the USG. Given
the existence of that agreement, the burden of proof rests with you.
> under what grounds will US marshalls be allowed to padlock NSI's doors?
As William Walsh has already pointed out, no such action would be required.
The USG need only instruct the other root servers not to point to NSI.
Anyone who still harbors suspicions that Gordon Cook is a paid agent of NSI
should now be able to lay those fears to rest. Nobody on the NSI payroll
would advocate a course of action as clearly suicidal as abrogation of the
Cooperative Agreement.
This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I believe that NSI's management
is intelligent enough to recognize that any action on its part that either
destabilizes the Internet or repudiates the means by which it has gained its
dominant market position would destroy its business. Unilateral termination
of the Cooperative Agreement would do both. Such action by NSI would force
NTIA and/or ICANN to immediately transfer control of the root and rebid
.com/.net/.org in order to retain their authority. I need not describe the
chaos that would result. The latter point is so obvious that it shouldn't
require mention - without the Cooperative Agreement, NSI would not now be
celebrating its 5,000,000th registrant.
While NSI is likely to continue to employ delaying tactics and complain to
anyone who will listen about its supposed unfair treatment, it will take no
substantive action to threaten the status quo, lest it endanger its
bread-and-butter registrar business. It will abide by ICANN's registrar
accreditation guidelines when it is required to do so, and will fulfill its
obligation to permit its registry contract to be rebid next year.
If NSI truly intended to challenge the USG's authority, it would have done
so last October rather than agree to Amendment 11. Since Gordon seems to
have forgotten about it, this agreement terminates NSI's registry contract
effective 30 September 2000, and obligates NSI to recognize the USG's
transfer of its DNS management responsibilities to NewCo, since designated
by the USG as ICANN. This gives ICANN the power (assuming that the USG
doesn't withdraw its recognition) to transfer the .com/.net/.org registry to
any other party, effective 1 October 2000. Amendment 11 also grants the USG
the authority to transfer the primary root server to any other party at any
time upon written notice to NSI.
I have already posted at least five too many messages in response to
Gordon's absurd hypothetical. I do not intend to comment further on this
matter.
P.S. Tony: the fact that I am an ordinary Internet user and not a hired
gun does not disqualify me from commenting on matters of Internet policy.
By the way, I don't have a "passion" for counting down to 2000 - I'm showing
off my first Java applet.
