Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting

From: nicnic <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:46:12 -0000

>>No, it has just be denied by individuals like you who want to make
>>money by getting a profitable monopoly on public resources. The bulk
>>of the community has a pretty obvious interest in the other direction.
>
>
>Your assessment is as inaccurate as your basis for the claim. What
>is the difference between a registry making an honest profit and a
>registrar making an honest profit? If both provide good service,
>contractually prohibit gouging and harm to the Internet, where is the
>harm?
>
>For those of you recent to the discussion, please note that Perry was
>a member of the IAHC, the group that proposed that a single registry
>be created to handle all TLDs, including COM/NET/ORG (which they
>carefully claimed SHOULD be a part). Their plan, as you may be aware,
>called for registrars to pay $10,000 each just to participate (and still
>does). They're STILL taking this money from registrars, including a
>monthly fee, and they have absolutely nothing to show for it. They also
>changed their internal pricing in much the same way that they claim
>for-profit registries would. These are all public facts, and can be found
>by reading the various archived lists.
>
>Why do I bring this up again? Simply to show that there are seriously
>different PHILOSOPHIES at work here, and they are overshadowing
>the plain fact that if we could just put them aside, create a stable, fair,
>open and transparent governing body, we could then come together
>and resolve these problems.
>
>But people keep bringing them up. Yes, I realize that I should just
>ignore them and not reply, but when factual inaccuracies are posted
>(and I'm sure Perry will claim I've done the same, natch) and
>personal attacks like the above (where Perry presumes to claim
>to know what it is that I want) are posted, and philosophical
>opinions are taken as fact (like the namespace is a public resource),
>the loudest voice seems to claim victory.
>
>As I've said, let's stop it, and move on to more productive issues,
>okay?
>
>--
>Christopher Ambler, Personal Opinion Only
>--
>NOTICE: The user of this email address is a resident of the State of 
>Washington. Washington law provides for up to $500 per incident in
>the case of Unsolicited Commercial Email (also known as spam).
>This individual WILL file a complaint.
>
>
And well written too !

Nicolas Reisini
techinvest.com
us-directory.com
act.nyc.ny.us
wall-street.nyc.ny.us

---

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:48:53 -0700

>Because this is the Internet public infrastructure and not your personal
>playground to make a fast buck. History has taught us a big lesson.
>.com represents 85% of all gTLD registrations. There is a reason: gTLDs
>are non-portable, quasi-non-interchangeable goods (imagine 'ownership'
>of .inc in a world of 100 million SLD delegations). Therefore, competition
>between registries (aka gTLDs) is fantasy. So get over it. Become a
registrar.
>Go forth and suffer *real* competition, not pseudo-competition because you
>have a lock on a gTLD.

I could say the same think to CORE. I guess everyone needs to get over it,
eh, Bob?

---

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:31:51 -0700

At 09:12 PM 7/14/98 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
>"Richard J. Sexton" writes:
>> Chris has little to be a flake about. You register the domain via a web
>> form. You make updates to it via a web form, there are half a dozen
>> nameservers or so for that TLD.
>> 
>> If Chris is a flake, he doesnt get paid. I would consider that to
>> be incentive.
>
>One would have thought this to be true, but NSI has proven both ideas
>to be wrong. First of all, you will pay and pay, regardless, because
>you can't afford to have your domain name disrupted. 

False, you pay because there is nowhere else to go. NSI really was messing
up bad for a long while, and they were arrogantly unresponsive as well.
This has since changed, thank God. However, it did highlight a problem.
There was no, and still isn't, any choice. All of us in NET or COM have no
choice. If one is in the US then there is REALLY NO CHOICE.

>We have also
>determined that even the simple business of assuring a database is
>kept up to date can be mammothly screwed up -- NSI has done so, on
>many occassions.

Still screwed up. No DB integrity.

>> Sure the prices *should* drop, I'll go you one further and say
>> they should be free. But, there appears to be enough of a consensus
>> that there should be a minimum price of $35/yr to encourage garabge
>> collection of unused names and to discourage runs on registries.
>
>I don't see any reason to set minimum or other prices -- that's price
>fixing, which the anti-trust laws discourage, and which I, as a free
>marketeer, don't believe in. The market will set the price on things
>fairly if we let it. That requires name portability and competition,
>however. 
>
>> >I have no evidence that supports your claim. I also suspect that
>> >competition in the area would drive prices down to a small rate of
>> >return over cost.
>> 
>> Try looking at a few CORE registrars, Perry. Let me know if you
>> find one thats $35.
>
>None of them are operating, so there are no prices from any of them
>for anything. There is no operating CORE registry at the
>moment. Unlike, say, Chris Ambler or Eugene Kashpureff, CORE doesn't
>pretend to be able to sell a service it currently cannot sell.

We don't either. We actually have private TLDs working. GRS is fine also.
Right now, untill the roots get opened up, we are deploying on GRS.

>> Also consider that some poeple may prefer paying less and living with
>> poor service as opposed to paying CORE prices and getting their
>> hand held. 
>
>The point of CORE is to allow people to choose to pay for service, or
>not, as they freely wish in the marketplace. Some registrars for, say,
>.COM, could offer extensive handholding at a high price. Some could
>offer minimal service and a very low price, say $10 or $15. The whole
>point of CORE is to permit this sort of tradeoff to occur freely in
>the marketplace.

Why not give out a list of CORE registrars so we can all go take a look?
___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
SecureMail from MHSC.NET is coming soon!

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 13:48:16 -0400

From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>

    > Phone numbers aren't like routing information? Then why do we have area
    > codes and exchange prefixes?

You will note that the "local number portability" is just that - *local*
portability. Move from one state in the US to another, and get a new phone
number.

And even LNP is being done with Yet Another Giant Mapping Database, so that
when your incoming call arrives at a LATA, the IEC knows which LEC to give it
to. In other words, your "phone number" here in the New World Order *doesn't*
contain your exchange any more - rather, it's a portable "phone name" which
has to be mapped into a *real* phone number befire the phone switches can
route the call.

In other words, a phone number under LNP is just like a DNS name - it has to
be mapped into a real location before being useful. People don't think of
them that way because the *syntax* is identical - looks like a phone numbers,
works like a phone number. But they aren't really line numbers any more.

    > Further, I would love to have a truly permanent, portable IP
    > address(es).

Sure. Now, remembering the above details about how LNP really works, with
mapping on all inbound calls, please explain to us the details: are you going
to emit packets with these "portable" IP "addresses" in them?

If so, what happens: does each individual router along the path do a mapping
before routing the packet - or does the first hop router do the lookup once
and modify the packet? (If so, what about TCP checksums - not to mention
authentication...)

Gee, guys, where's Tim Bass? Maybe we could get him to explain all this to
Mr. Greenwell... :-) (Tim, if you're listening, my apologies in advance!)

	Noel

---

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:33:07 -0700

>I actually believe in a fully open process. However, email is not
>structured to make that feasible. In a committee hearing, you can
>follow things like Roberts Rules of Order to make sure that giving
>everyone their say is orderly. In email, you can't do that, which
>means you can't operate a fully open process using only email.

I actually agree with Perry on this one, which is why I'm going well
out of my way to attend the meetings (DC, Geneva, etc). I feel we
make much more progress at these meetings than over the
lists. By far.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:47:44 +0100

Perry and all,

Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Scott Bradner writes:
> > jeff asks
> > >   Why would anybody be filtered out if you truly believe in an open process?
> >
> > because history shows some people contribute volume not content?
> >  http://golem.sobco.com/nww/1997/08-democracy.html
>

  God you are misinformed Kent!!!  You can certainly VOTE using a Web page
app.  It is done every day in one forum or another.

  And any E-mail mailing list can be open to anyone besides that point.  You can
also use a FREE form mailing list to have compleat input unrestricted thereby
allowing an open process to anyone that wishes to participate.

> Perry

 regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:12:00 -0700

>> Why doesnt CORE just use IOD instead of emergent?
>
>IOD didn't bid on the contract. Emergent bid on the contract.

Exactly. CORE is using Emergent. IOD is using IOD, the company
chose to do it themselves.

>The central locking database maintained by CORE is just that -- a
>database. It is not a business. It isn't set up to take payments, make
>payments, handle incoming orders, handle phone support or phone calls,
>or any of the other things that would make it a business. It is just
>an organization that maintains an Oracle database in a closet. The
>registrars are not "middle men". They are doing virtually all of the
>actual work.
>
>The only thing the CORE database does is make sure that they don't
>step on each other's feet and provide a central source for the DNS
>information to be generated from.

A fine system, to be sure. For that matter, if, as expected, the mandate
is that registries and registrars must separate themselves, it's
entirely logical that IOD would remove the registrar functions and
become, strictly, a registry. At that point, the $35 fee could very well
drop dramatically.

Right now, IOD is set up as registry AND registrar. Some work has been
done, I'm told, to get those ready to be separated if need be.

This is one of a few reasons why the previous price comparison was
somewhat presumptive.