"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> My apologies for the formatting problem. Hopefully that is fixed now. And
> thanks for cleaning it up.
The formatting problem provides an interesting example in this thread, IMO.
What you did was mix your reply with my message, with no identifier such as
">" or your name as to which was which. You mixed two information streams
into one without labeling each. The same happens today with the Shared
Registry System -- the information sent from the Registrar to the Registry
mixes two information streams (the registrant's and the Registrar's) into one.
But it is even worse because the SRS actually labels that mix as coming only
from the Registrar and fully ignores the *known fact* that the registrant
must have played a role in it, must have authority over some parts of it --
most conspicuously the domain name and the name servers.
The analogy here would be if you had deleted my name in that reply and simply
intermixed my text with your own, no labels to differentiate, and submitted
that to this list as if the entire stream where your own. This is not acceptable
here, of course, and everyone would cry "foul". Of course, you would never
do this and thus you prove my point -- this is not acceptable. Why should
it be acceptable in the SRS? Why should it be allowed for the Registrar to
submit information that legally belongs to another (the domain name)
without *any reference* (and even, with *denial*) to the rightful owner?
Thus, in the SRS the "invisible" registrant is the fault, the missing dot
that can separate the two information streams. Just like in your message.
> Why do I disagree? First of all, I am not convinced that the registrant is
> nearly as vulnerable as you believe and suspect that success or failure of
> the current system will be the only way we will truly know.
As a scientist and engineer, I tell you that if buildings or anything else were
made according to this principle, that success or failure of the current system
will be the only way we will truly know if it is sound, then there would not be
scientists or engineers ;-) Knowledge comes from inference, not only from
experience -- and experience must build upon previous experiences. In your
phrase, knowledge comes neither from inference nor from experience. It comes
from luck.
The above may sound philosophical from an essay in epistemology, but it
is utterly practical -- even the common man knows he cannot trust that which
has no base in experience. Now, we have the SRS which *contradicts* our base
of experience -- two-party systems have never worked in commerce, have always
been subject to easy fraud, deceit or simple pure bad luck. Why would
it work in a high speculative application, and over a resource which *was made
to be* finite and unique?
> We can talk
> about hypothetical cases forever but the real test is the daily functioning
> of the system.
The real test, business wise, is to see who will understand first that the system
has no chance to work and thus see that the market needs something better.
Government wise too. And fraud/mistake wise, too, unfortunately, as
"races.com" and many other cases may show.
> So far, it is functioning quite well.
;-) This is what the guy that jumped from the 20th floor said,
when he passed the 1st floor, downwards.
To be sure, I think that the SRS will work quite well for some time
(and have said so to NSI and in this list more than once) -- but then
it will collapse under its own weight (there are already more than 80
Registrars to one Registry) and as its faults become known and
exploited. And, no change in implementation can cure a faulty
design architecture. The "invisible" registrant is the fault,
but not the culprit, mind you ;-)
> Secondly, I believe
> that the current model, while not perfect, allows more freedom for market
> forces to work freely and thereby bring about change in contrast to any
> particular group of people regulating change as they see fit.
Industry self-regulation is what is missing here -- with accountability
proportional to power, with a respect for the customer's rights, with
a requirement to always indicate who owns what in a database, with
the voluntary provision of logs for all parties involved in the case of
a dispute, with a more forthcoming attitude if I can so summarize.
And I believe the market will get there -- this has happened before.
IMO, cyberspace today is where the car manufacturers where in the US
some 100 years ago. They also denied knowing the customer's needs
after the car was sold to a reseller. They also talked about freedom
of contract, and market freedom. But it was their absolute freedom they
were talking about, over and above the consumer needs -- which
eventually collapsed.
> Third, I
> believe that the processes in place, while admittedly a compromise of many
> parties, has mechanisms that can be used to bring about continued
> improvement as it is warranted by actual experience.
Continued improvement in the same pond, where we are like ducks that keep
splashing water at each other and think that we are doing something useful.
Continued improvement will not bring the qualitative changes we need in
order to really give the registrant a fair service, not an "invisible" registration
where only the Registrars are domain holders. The Shared Registry Protocol
is conceptually flawed and you yourself recognized that an absent Registry
is a problem in a Registrar-registrant issue over what/when/how something
was or was not registered:
[Chuck] I agree with you that the Registry would be of no help in this situation
unless there is evidence of a violation of the Registry-Registrar agreement.
But, this list is public and also archived. May the buyer beware and read this
list and this thread, including your declaration above.
But, maybe, we (the concerned ones) should write a FAQ on the missing
dot? Maybe the FAQ could be posted elsewhere? I suggest Chuck's entry
above as well as some from Ron, Russ, and others, together with those points
I mentioned (including the two temporary fixes). Then, registrants would
have a better idea where they stand (or, not) and how they can improve
the odds in their favor.
Comments? I can do the initial draft and submit here for discussion.
Maintainers of the FAQ would also have to be decided upon.
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
