Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 07:49:13 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <[email-masked]>
To: Jim Fleming <[email-masked]>
Cc: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>; Open RSC List
<[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 4:11 AM
Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting

>At 12:54 AM 7/14/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <[email-masked]>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>After many years, and goal-posts that moved so much we thought they were
>>>soccer-forwards, we're a little tired of waiting.
>>
>>
>>I agree, I am not sure what is taking Jon Postel
>>and the ITAG so long. What is the point of "pacing"
>>all this to September 30, 1998 ?
>
>Jim,
>It isn't the 30Sept98 thing. That's only when the new org gets to looking
>at it. We've waited for the GP, it was supposed to do it's thing, then we
>waited for the WP, and it was supposed to do this thing, now we have to
>wait for the New Entity? That was only the *last* two years.
>

Roeland,

You have a lot of talent and in my opinion you have to make
sure that your expectations are properly set. Also, I suggest
that you find a venue where your talents can be enhanced
and where your time is not wasted. In my opinion, many of
the talented people in these forums will be following that
path. If they do not, then they are wasting their own time and
will have to be responsible for their own frustrations.

The U.S. Government appears to have all of these matters
under control. The problems seem to now be well understood
and the solutions are clear. The U.S. Government's strategy
should also be clear. Again, the parallels with Cuba are striking.
I suggest that you study the history of that island nation that
sits 90 miles from the U.S. Many people have wasted a lot of
time over the years hoping it will change. It has not.

Will the IPv4/6 core transport network change ? I doubt it.
Will the people living on the IPv4/6 core "island" change ?
I doubt it. Those that are happy will remain and will ensure
that change does not occur. In some cases their happiness
will depend on nothing changing. They will therefore fight for
the status quo or at least stand their ground making sure that
nothing changes.

Will the rest of the planet move forward ? I hope so. I have
confidence that the best and the brightest will not get bogged
down in the status quo of the IPv4/6 island society. In fact
there is progress all around and in the three short years that
many of these debates have been taking place an enormous
amount of progress has been made in the "free world".

In summary, if you want to work on leading edge developments
you have to seek those in the free world. It is there. Just look
for it. You might be surprised what you find....

Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 12:39:24 -0400

From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[email-masked]>

    > it's *critical* that the *Registry* for a new TLD be operated as a
    > public trust, not as someone's way to "make money fast".

    You really don't want to go the "public trust" route. ... but there is a
    specific legal meaning to the words "public trust".

Sorry, I wasn't using it in the jargon sense, but in the general meaning "i.e.
for the public good".

    > ask yourself how you'd feel once your snappy URL
    > http://my_name.new_tld/foo/bar is embedded in 10,000 web pages
    > world-wide, and your for-profit Registry then ups the rate to $1,000
    > per month....

    There are folks out there that are perfectly capable of blowing their own
    brains out too. ... Similarly for such a Registry. The customers would be
    inconvenienced, but they'll go to another Registry

Unfortunately, the suicide analogy doesn't apply, because in committing
commercial suicide, they're shooting you too.

    sueing the pants of their old one as they go. You do realize that such a
    move is a legal breach of contract don't you? There *are* remedies
    available for such breaches.

If their contact includes terms that guarantee *future* prices, then you'd
have a cause of action. If not, you're probably out of luck.

	Noel

---

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:02:28 -0700

>have a cause of action. If not, you're probably out of luck.

As I've said, Image Online Design has been advocating this for over a
year now, but the "non-profit-only" proponents seem to want to ignore it.

How about another possibility: a registry charges a SINGLE ONE-TIME
FEE for registration, with NO YEARLY RENEWALS. Updates to the
domain are charged a flat $5 per change, and this, too, is contractually
locked. You now have a FLAT RATE WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE.

You now have TWO solutions to this problem.

As I've said, there is no economic reason to mandate an absence of
profitable registries. None.
--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

Why are we rehashing the IAHC yt again on th ORSC miling list, or anywhere
else for that matter.  All thse discussions just degenerate into fights
over whethr or not some has he facts straight as viewed by someone else.

IT IS POINTLESS!  And divisive too;-)...

So, please remove Open RSC List <[email-masked]> from the TO
and CC of this thread.

Best...\Stef

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 14:37:41 -0400 (EDT)

At 09:54 AM 7/14/98 -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>    Originally, and the fubar that IOD stepped into, IANA even had a TLD
>    registry set up and running. Chris even officially used the published
>    process. >poof< Suddenly there was no process and the check was returned.
>    Then the scum-bags at CORE decided that the WEB name was so neat that
>    they wanted it, since IOD obviously couldn't use it. Does IANA help
>    defend IOD? They do not.
>
>The fly in this particular complaint (which does have a smidgen of merit, but
>let's not get into the grubby details, they don't matter for this larger, and
>much more important point) is that:
>
>+++ New TLD's should not be new "Oklahoma Land Rushes" for entrepreneurs who
>+++ are out to make a quick buck.
>
>In other words, it's *critical* that the *Registry* for a new TLD be operated
>as a public trust, not as someone's way to "make money fast".
>
>(If you don't see why for-profit, but competing, Registries don't work, ask
>yourself how you'd feel once your snappy URL http://my_name.new_tld/foo/bar
>is embedded in 10,000 web pages world-wide, and your for-profit Registry then
>ups the rate to $1,000 per month....)

There is some evidence (see the FTC paper on the subject at the NTIA site) that
the non=profit vs. for-profit issue doesn't make any difference.

None the less, the scenario you cite above is a valid concern. The poeple
who want to run registries that are affiliated with open-rsc have come up
with what is in our opinion the only way to counter that: a more or
mess "good dns keeping" seal of approval with certain guideleines to be adhered
to. One of them is to publish rate and rate increase schedules.

--
The most important thing in the programming language is the name.  A
language will not succeed without a good name.  I have recently invented
a very good name and now I am looking for a suitable language.
     -- D. E. Knuth, 1967

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:43:38 -0400 (EDT)

At 11:00 AM 7/14/98 -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
>Be very careful about "perpetual care" pricing.  ANSI adpted it for X.400
>ADMD and X.500 Distinguished Names, and came to a price od $2000.
>
>The problem is that perpetual care requires that the initial (only) fee
>must b large enough to endow care and feeding of the administrative
>requirements for ever, hence the fee must yield a large enough capital
>investment to provide for perpetual care.
>
>I call this "Cemetary Plot Economics"...  
>I think you do not really want to go there.
>
>A reasonable contractual guarantee of price levels should suffice.

Can we write a big DNS LOCK IN FAQ somewhere and put this as the
answer THAT question?

After hashing it out for 4 years and all...

---

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 13:30:28 -0700

>If my assessment is inaccurate, would you please explain to me how,
>exactly, a user of .FOO is to switch from one registrar to another
>under your plan?

This is an excellent question. If you presume that the .FOO registry
provides database services at a locked rate, the only variable rate
is at the regsitrar. If a customer doesn't like the service from the
registrar, they are free to choose another. Indeed, if the registry
charges a locked and single (one-time) rate, the yearly renewals
go to the registrar completely. If a customer doesn't like the service,
they pick another. Bad registrars go out of business in a hurry. This
also allows ISPs to act as registrars for their customers. Bad
service means that they not only lose the yearly domain renewals,
but they also lose an ISP customer.

As for the registry, a for-profit registry and a non-profit registry are
indistinguishable when it comes to service. They can both provide
good service, and they can both provide bad service. The only
difference is in pricing. That is the ONLY difference. Now, I'm willing
to say that for-profit registries should contractually prohibit themselves
from bad pricing policy. Once that's done, they're equal. 

A for-profit registry can delete names at whim. So can a non-profit.
A for-profit registry can change dispute policy at whim. So can a
non-profit.
A for-profit registry can provide smooth service. So can a non-profit.

Finally, a for-profit registry has a "monopoly" on a name, as you
suggest, JUST LIKE a non-profit does, if you have multiple registries.
CORE, long ago, admitted that they wouldn't be the only registry. Many
IAHC members now say that there should be many.

If a registry doesn't contractually limit their ability to change prices at
whim, nobody will buy from them. For that matter, even non-profits
should do this, as a non-profit might decide they want to expand. That
costs money. Even when you're cost-recovery, costs can get pretty
high.

So, please give me a SINGLE reason to mandate non-profit if, once
you contractually eliminate pricing problems, they're indistinguishable
from each other.

>I don't even care about the money. What about if service is
>dangerously bad? I have clients that have had serious trouble from NSI 
>inaccurately cutting off their domain names. If you can't switch, you
>are locked down. This is a "monopoly" in the usual jargon.

If you concede that there are multiple registries, then for-profit and
non-profit can BOTH do this. There is no difference.

If you don't concede that there are multiple registries, then you're back
to saying that there should be only one registry, and I believe that issue
was laid to rest some time ago.

>In the U.S., we've eliminated non-portable 800 and 888 numbers. Why
>should we accept non-portable domain names?

We've done it by having a single clearinghouse for them. That won't work
with domain names, as we've gone over in depth.

>The situation was that a shared registry was built. This cost
>money. Each registrar was asked to pay its share of the costs --
>nothing more, nothing less. If a company doesn't have $10,000 to its
>name, it isn't even going to be able to pay for a couple of computers
>and high speed internet access. This was hardly onerous.

Yup. Cost-recovery, at a base minimum, still costs. I think that was one
of my points.

---

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: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:47:14 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Ambler <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Richard J.
Sexton <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Tired of Waiting

>At 02:29 PM 7/14/98 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>>If CORE turns into a flake, the .firm names that they wanted to sell
>
>Chris, there is a fundamental difference between a private, for-profit
>entity going flakey, versus having that happen with a public,
>not-for-profit, with independent public oversight.
>
>The incentives and, more importantly, the controls are completely
>different.  They don't exist for the former, whereas they are extensive for
>the latter.
>

Things can always change...

@@@@ http://www.sunworld.com/swol-07-1998/swol-07-bind.html?070898a

BIND developer going commercial
...
"The ISC's new executive director, David Conrad, formerly with APNIC,
says that while charging for BIND is not even "within the realm of
discussion
at this point," the way BIND development is bankrolled is about to change.
"Right now the ISC is essentially unviable," he says, "and I see my role as
trying to turn it into a viable organization."
...
"Instead of going for a small number of very large bucks," says Conrad,
"we'll go for a large number of very small bucks."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Jim Fleming

---

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:10:46 -0700

>"Richard J. Sexton" writes:
>> If a *registrar* gives poor performence, you switch registrars.
>> 
>> If a *registry* is no good, you're stuck whether it's Chris or the
>> CORE registry.
>
>The registry is chartered as a non-profit in the public
>interest. Chris Ambler is not. The registry, as we designed it in the
>IAHC, is supposed to be a tightly regulated thing that did very
>little, so there is very little for it to screw up, and very little
>cost associated with it. Chris Ambler doesn't possess these features.

Please stop using my name as if I were a registry. I am not. There are
many companies that are, and many that want to be. I own part of one.
But it's not me, personally.

Regardless, the IAHC plan makes a hell of a lot of sense, if you take
the assumption that the IAHC's stated goal of a single registry is the
implemented solution. It's not. It won't be. So once you have multiple
registries, you're in a whole new ballgame. Whole new ballpark, for
that matter.

Things have CHANGED since the IAHC, Perry. For the worse, for
the better, like them or hate them, they've still changed.

>The model is much like that for 800 numbers, where it has worked quite 
>well.

Only because there is a single registry for 800 numbers. Are you, then,
advocating a single registry for all domain names?

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:01:46 -0400 (EDT)

>not-for-profit, with independent public oversight.  

True. In the former case, the shareholders of the registry ("stakeholders")
want to know why everybodys complaiing and when this will be fixed and
if you don't you can be replaced.

In the latter case, the oversight organization ("stakeholders") wants
to know why eveybody is complaiing and when will this be fixed and
if you don't you can be replaced.

Different folks, same strokes.

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:20:07 -0400 (EDT)

At 09:12 PM 7/14/98 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> 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. 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.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but IOD would do better if things were doing well,
than if they wern't. Snce they're for profit, isn't that incentive to
NOT have problem that could spread around and make folks pick
say, .www instead of .web ?

I don't buy the argument NSI is a huge problem any more. It's veyr 
touigh to fault their current perfoemwnce. Sure they had problems 2 
or 3 years ago and sure you can find contemporary horror stories, but
you measure those in parts per million.

>> 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. 

There's alays ways around that. Make an RFD that said "Domain names
should be $35". Call it RFC$$$. Then, regoistries can decide to
be RFC$$$ complient or not, on a volunatry basis, in perpetuity. Is
that price fixing ?

>> >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.

Perry, they've taken money, lots of it, for "pre-registration".

>There is no operating CORE registry at the
>moment.

What, they stole it again ???

>Unlike, say, Chris Ambler or Eugene Kashpureff, CORE doesn't
>pretend to be able to sell a service it currently cannot sell.

There is a difference. Neither Kashpureff or IOD have taken money
promising universal resolution of the domain names they registered.
"They resolve in our servers" was all that was ever said, and "one
day we hope they resolve everywhere". CORE'ites have claimed
their names will work RSN.

>> 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.

I know thats the theory, but the price of a domain from emergent - last
time I checked, was $15. The price is, on average, $100 retail (feel
free to offer evidence to the contrary), so, it hasn't worked out
in practice.

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 02:25:12 -0400

From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>

    >> Chris, you entirely miss the fundamental problem of monopolies. It
    >> isn't that monopolists engage in this or that *specific* practice. It's
    >> that their monopoly position gives them a *general* lever by which
    >> they can squeeze their customers. ...
    >> The possibilities for exploiting a monopoly position are only limited
    >> by the imagination of the monopolist.

    > Kent, I still agree - but how are these arguments any different for a
    > non-profit registry vs. a for-profit registry? I can't see where they
    > are any different.

The big difference is that a non-profit TLD "owner" (aka monopoly)
*inherently* has a lot less incentive to abuse their monopoly status for
financial gain. Me, I've always found that money is one of the key things
that motivates people to go off the rails.

Is it the only thing? No - and as you point out, there could still be
problems with a non-profit TLD "owner". (However, as Perry points out, there
are safeguards there - in particular the fact that the non-profit in question
is controlled by, and answers to, a wide group - unlike the for-profit
operation, which answers primarily to its shareholders/owners.)

So, those two things together - less ability to abuse the situation to produce
financial gain, and an organization which answers to a wider group - seem to a
lot of us to make non-profit TLD "owners" likely to produce a better system
than for-profit TLD "owners".

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 01:56:43 -0400

From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>

    Please, when customers are guaranteed IP portability, let me know....

Ah, I see.

Well, I expect this will happen about when customers are guaranteed street
address portability. Tell me, is that coming anytime soon? Please, when it
does, let me know?

	Noel

PS: Everyone, please trim those CC lists! A courtesy copy to the person
you're replying to, OK, but there shouldn't be any other personal addresses
from way back in the thread.

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 09:12:39 -0400 (EDT)

>address portability. Tell me, is that coming anytime soon? Please, when it

Ok, send me mail to:

Richard Sexton
Box #2 RR1 Eldorado,
Ontario, Canada K0K 1Y0

or

Richard Sexton
Maitland House
Bannockburn, Ontario
Canada K0K 1Y0

or 

VRx
K0K 1Y0

or 

Richard Sexton
17245 Hiway #62
Madoc, Ontario
K0K 1Y0

or I could rent out some PO
boxes... at any rate it'll
all get here.

However, your analogy doesnt apply very well, it's anchored in the
physical world and IP addresses don't have to be.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:15:29 +0100

William and all,

William Allen Simpson wrote:

> This person is not in my kill file (yet), so I recently saw a message
> claiming something that I thought we had long ago put to rest, and it
> was at least somewhat related to our work in the IETF.  Other CCs are
> now BCC'd:

  Why would anybody be filtered out if you truly believe in an open process?

> > that IANA HAD a process for registering TLDs, and the first time someone
> > tries to use it there is a policy change disallowing new TLD registrations.
> >
> I am unable to find the RFC where this process is described.

  There is none.  However the IAHC attempted to have their 7 gtld's entered
into the Root, and NSI denied that.

> Could
> someone point out the specifics?  The latest policy that I can find
> (still in force as far as I can tell), is as follows:
>
> RFC-1591 (1994):
>
>    In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
>    hierarchy of names.  The root of system is unnamed.  There are a set
>    of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  These are the
>    generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
>    letter country codes from ISO-3166.  It is extremely unlikely that
>    any other TLDs will be created.

  THis is an RFC, that is not a standard YET.  RFC = Request for comments.

>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, we have not finalized any other process,
> although we sent representatives to the IAHC to aid in developing a
> process.  But IANA serves the IAB, and the IAB has not yet issued a new
> RFC describing a change in process (despite urging to do so), nor has it
> designated any other body to serve as a new IANA.

  The IANA does NOT serve the IAB.  The IAB acts as the RFC editor.
The IANA serves the USG under contract currently.

>
>
> [email-masked]
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

 Regards,

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

---

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

> 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: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:17:04 -0400 (EDT)

>   I already answerd that Scott.  (Read above).

hello Jeff - "this list" referrs to [email-masked] the ietf
list and [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.

---

From: "Richard J. Sexton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:06:07 -0400 (EDT)

At 01:12 PM 7/16/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>> At 12:48 PM 7/16/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
>> >Well, if that is the case, and seeing that Chris can sell at $35/yr, with
>> >registrar AND registry integrated, why doesn't he divest from the registry
>> >part, just stick to the registrar part, and bundle in with CORE. 
>> 
>Well, IOD didn't try to get the contract up for grabs. I don't know when the
>contract goes "up for grabs" again, but at that time, IOD could easily try
>to get the contract. Of course, they'd have to understand that they don't
>*own* ".web" and could be outbidded next time around.

A lot of poeple don't think the CORE model is any good.

>> I suppose the answer is, Chris, like many of us feel
>> anybody should be allowed to buy a domain direclty
>> without *having* to go through a middleman that does
>> nothing except click on a web form anf mark it up
>> as a memebr of a club where dollars, not clues, are the
>> price of entry.
>
>If that's all that has to be done by the registrar, then why is Chris
>gouging (sp?) people for $35? Why is he getting a markup profit of $25 over
>his $10 cost for doing NOTHING? Anyone will tell you that a level of profit
>like that is something that will get looked at very closely if there's a
>monopoly situation (as Chris would like).

Below $35, you'll have runs on registries.

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:47:25 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: John Charles Broomfield <[email-masked]>
<snip>

>Having covered initial cost, running costs are ridiculously low, and
service
>is relatively simple to give, so allowing a for-profit company to have a
>strangle-hold on this (ie allowing him to charge whatever he wants for
>example) would be bad practice.

Emergent is a for-profit company.
What are their prices ?

Also, since it is established in the U.S.
that registries are "ordinarily carried on
for profit", I do not think the IRS will approve
a non-profit registry. What good does it
do to design a system that works in
Switzerland but not in the U.S. ? or was
that the goal ?

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/index.html

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bus-orgs.html

@@@@ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/eo/bl-req.html

"No part of its net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or individual and it may not be organized for profit or
organized to engage in an activity ordinarily carried on for profit
(even if the business is operated on a cooperative basis or produces
only sufficient income to be self-sustaining)."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Jim Fleming