Jay,
I recall that exchange very well but don't believe the NDA RAB members
signed has any relevance here. The following is public knowledge: the
original design of the SRS implemented an auto-ACK policy for transfers;
responding to a recommendation by the RAB, it was changed to auto-NAK; then
at the end of the test-bed we were asked by the test-bed registrars to
change it back to auto-ACK. I certainly respect the opinions of the RAB
members but I also think it make sense to respond to customer needs.
Moreover, I definitely think it is inaccurate to call a design feature a
"glitch."
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Fenello [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [IFWP] Re: Very Different Stories
>
> At 03:02 PM 7/15/00, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Jay,
> >
> >Please explain what glitch there was in the SRS. I don't believe your
> >assessment in this regard is correct.
> >
> >Chuck
>
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> I was referring to an exchange that occurred on one
> of the IETF mailing lists, where at least one member
> of the SRS advisory committee was complaining about
> some design decisions that were made about the SRS
> that were less than optimal.
>
> If you'd like more details, then I'd suggest removing
> them from their NDA, as they have requested.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jay Fenello [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:10 AM
> > > To: Becky Burr; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Esther Dyson;
> > > Mike Roberts; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [IFWP] Re: Very Different Stories
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FYI:
> > >
> > >
> > > At 11:54 PM 7/13/00, [someone] wrote:
> > > >Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> >http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16642,00.html?nl=dnh
> > > > >http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/00/151796.html
> > > >
> > > >Neither of these articles goes into detail on the pros or cons of
> > > >ICANN's DNS management or plans. Do you have any URLS to something
> > > >more substantive?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, please see Mikki Barry's Congressional
> > > testimony below.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Most of us domain owners see ICANN as a breath of fresh air after 5
> years
> > > >of monopolistic management, price gouging, anti-consumer privacy
> > > policies,
> > > >insecure data management, and direct email advertising (spam) by
> > > >NSI/NetSol.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, others wonder why you would feel that way.
> > >
> > > Ironically and if anything, your domain name is
> > > much less secure today than it was before ICANN
> > > started messing with it.
> > >
> > > For example, we have just endured a wave of domain
> > > name hijackings (i.e. Internet.com), and lost names
> > > due to transfer glitches in the SRS (i.e. races.com).
> > >
> > > We have a registrar community that has discovered
> > > "partnerships" with domain name brokers and auction
> > > houses, and the last time I checked, every single
> > > registrar had a clause that allowed them to
> > > confiscate your domain name without recourse.
> > >
> > > Truth of the matter is, ICANN has made egregious
> > > decisions in support of its agenda, resulting in
> > > an organization heavily biased against small
> > > businesses and individuals.
> > >
> > > Just look at the terms of the UDRP. It heavily
> > > favours the plaintiff, to the point of allowing
> > > them to choose their jury, and only giving the
> > > defendants a very short time to retain counsel
> > > and respond.
> > >
> > > Or look at the bias in the DNSO, where famous
> > > mark owners have pushed through a "Sunrise
> > > Provision," whereby they get to preclude up to
> > > 50 derivations of their mark in any new gTLD!
> > >
> > > What we are really seeing is an attempt to
> > > control words on a world-wide basis, just as
> > > we are seeing attempts to own genetic code,
> > > business processes, etc. But these are very
> > > complicated times, as highlighted by the ever
> > > present questions that surround Napster.
> > >
> > > While I don't have any answers, I do have many
> > > questions -- and a belief that we must have open
> > > and frank discussions about these issues if we
> > > are to find any kind of lasting solution.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > >
> > > Jay.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Until someone presents a reason to question their management, other
> > > >than the fact that we're all waiting for more top level domains, I
> say
> > > >thank goodness for ICANN.
> > > >
> > > >[sig file]
> > >
> > >
> > > From the Congressional Record:
> > >
> > >
> http://com-notes.house.gov/cchear/hearings106.nsf/0ecf8a0be39f34228525671b
> > > 0073d116/42eb7dbc7f008088852568a90072b057?OpenDocument
> > >
> > >
> > > TESTIMONY OF MICHAELA M. BARRY
> > >
> > > Ms. Barry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
> > > I have to admit here that I am an attorney. Please make no
> > > mistake about ICANN's role. It goes far beyond that of
> > > technical management and enters into the realm of the
> > > regulatory body. It is not just about plumbing, but it is also
> > > about the codes and the licensing for that plumbing.
> > > ICANN's policy will affect commerce, freedom of expression,
> > > and likely stifle the very medium it seeks to regulate. We
> > > spent years fighting communism and its vision of planned
> > > economies. Let us not let that vision happen to the Internet.
> > > Competition is paramount, but not at the cost of free
> > > expression, sacrificing small business, and individual
> > > interests, and without accountability.
> > > ICANN is now trying to execute a policy agenda before it
> > > has created the participatory structures that would allow its
> > > decisions to be accepted and trusted by a broad spectrum of
> > > stakeholders. ICANN does not now, nor has it ever had
> > > legitimacy by consensus of the Internet community. ICANN is the
> > > classic top-down organizational structure without
> > > accountability. Most of the ordinary participant's in ICANN's
> > > activities thought that they were participating in an
> > > institution-building process. They thought that ICANN was a
> > > level playing field where all competing groups could come
> > > together to work out a consensus approach.
> > > They thought that they would have an opportunity to create
> > > membership structures, representational mechanisms, and policy
> > > development procedures first, and that actual policymaking
> > > would happen second. These include imposition of dispute
> > > policies from the World Intellectual Property Organization,
> > > WIPO, which even the U.S. Small Business Administration says
> > > are discriminatory.
> > >
> > > <BIG SNIP> Please read the rest!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Jay Fenello,
> > > New Media Strategies
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
> > > Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > "If we want to change the world, we have to
> > > begin by changing ourselves" -- Deepak Chopra
> > >
> > >
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Jay Fenello,
> New Media Strategies
> ------------------------------------
> http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
> Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
> -------------------------------------------------------
> "We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
> between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
> http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
> -- David Korten
>
