At 09:54 PM 7/8/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 09:45 PM 7/8/99 , Jon Zittrain wrote:
>>Gene,
>>
>>I always figured that the IETF approach is what Jon & IANA more or less
>>represented, for better or worse--with the IETF's degree of open
>>participation. Indeed, much of the structure of the DNS is expressed
>>through the IETF RFC process.
>>
>>ICANN's model is certainly a far cry from that--but the basis of the White
>>Paper was that Jon's system wasn't working anymore on its own. Jon
>>certainly wanted out of the creeping policy stuff, and other pressures--new
>>TLDs, trademark interests, and entrepreneurial interests in shared
>>registries
>
>
>Hi Jonathan,
>
>On another list, you asked me to give you
>the benefit of the doubt when I detected
>bias. Ok, I've detected bias:
>
>"Shared registries" were not promoted by
>the entrepreneurs that I knew, it was a
>business model promoted by the IAHC!
Err, no, not exactly. They just mandated it. When Newdom II
fell apart the successor mailing lists were newdom III
and Simon Higgs' shared registry list. IAHC came
out very shortly thereafter and dominated mindshare
because it was "official".
The original shared registry plan had more of
a registry peering concept. The notion of
separate registrars was felt to be a little
clumsy and inefficiant, and as sombody
watching the price of a com name fluctuate
as the CDN and USA dollar did weird things
this was the part I was most interested in
- that and registry automation/user interface.
I don't regret the 3 years wasted talking
and not doing, but it's time to get back
to work.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
