Ed,
Please help me understand what this means: "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." What are you asserting that I recognized?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Gerck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 12:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FAQ?, was Re: [IFWP] Re: missing the dot
>
>
>
>
> "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
>
>
>
