Kerry and all,
It is Jeff, not Jay, BTW >;)
Kerry Miller wrote:
> Jay,
> > The only two documents that somewhat address your question to
> > my knowledge are the White Paper and the ICANN/NTIA/MoU.
> >
> May I take it, then, that the *functions* are
> 1) Assignment of numerical addresses to Internet users.
> 2) Management of the system of registering names for Internet
> users.
> 3) Operation of the root server system.
> 4) Protocol Assignment ?
Basically yes, this is correct.
>
>
> To my eye, 1 and 3 are met by the registries, while the 'system' of
> registering names is up in the air, depending on the weight given to
> trademark interests, and counting on WIPO adjudication to sort out
> the consequences. (Is Protocol assignment a serious affair? Are
> we going to abandon TCP/IP?)
The problems that have been enumerated with #'s 1 and 3 as you mention
are many an varied. However it is sufficient enough to say that the
IP Registries have not adequately performed their function in the broader
opinion of the Stakeholder community for various reasons. #3 is dealing
with the problem of the current 13 Root servers and the current Root server
structure of the DNS. There are many that believe that 13 Root servers
is inadequate to handle the current load as well as any additional
gTLD's that may be added. In addition several arguments even approach
the current STRUCTURE of the DNS and these 13 Root servers with a
more flexible Root Server structure than we are currently operating under
in order to provide for both more competition as well as improve the
Redundancy of the DNS.
With respect to Protocols, there are many more operational protocols
than Just TCP/IP, far more. Currently there are many "Interfaces" in
current protocols of different types and in addition due to the IETF
prolonged and unenlightened process (RFC's) there are some in the private
sector that believe the development and most especially implementation is
being artificially limited by the IETF process.
>
>
> The White Paper then goes on to list some of the *problems* that
> face the net:
>
> _ There is widespread dissatisfaction about the absence of
> competition in domain name registration.
Yes, and this relates to #3 more specifically than is readily apparent.
But
the main thrust seems to be in providing for the competition to NSI
current monopoly.
>
>
> _ Conflicts between trademark holders and domain name
> holders are becoming more common. Mechanisms for resolving
> these conflicts are expensive and cumbersome.
Agreed. ANd in many's opinion not either enforceable or needed.
>
>
> _ Many commercial interests, staking their future on the
> successful growth of the Internet, are calling for a more formal and
> robust management structure.
Indeed they are. However it is easy to call for this, but not so easy to
do. Hence the current discussions with respect to ICANN and what sort
of structure should be implemented.
>
>
> _ An increasing percentage of Internet users reside outside of
> the U.S., and those stakeholders want to participate in Internet
> coordination.
Yes they do, and they should as well.
>
>
> _ As Internet names increasingly have commercial value, the
> decision to add new top-level domains cannot be made on an ad
> hoc basis by entities or individuals that are not formally
> accountable to the Internet community.
THis is where much of the debate is being waged currently. The White
Paper requires in essence that this should be a Bottom-up Stakeholder
driven and determined process. The ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board
seems to believe otherwise, based on their most recent actions.
>
>
> Now the interesting thing to me is, ICANN is a *sequel to two
> earlier versions:
> In May of 1996, Dr. Postel proposed the creation of multiple,
> exclusive, competing top-level domain name registries... The
> IAHC issued a draft plan in December 1996 ... [which] was
> criticized for its aggressive technology development and
> implementation schedule, for being dominated by the Internet
> engineering community, and for lacking participation by and
> input from [*]business interests and others in the Internet
> community.(13) Others criticized the plan for failing to solve the
> [*]competitive problems that were such a source of
> dissatisfaction among Internet users and for imposing
> unnecessary burdens on [*]trademark holders.
>
> The impression I get, in other words is that the
> > > problem or problems ICANN or NewCo [*as distinct from Postel's
> > > draft or the IAHC propposal*] was designed to treat
> were not technical, but commercial. Thus, two years later, we have
>
> Policy oversight [being] undertaken in a separate council called
> the [ICANN] with seats allocated to specified stakeholder
> groups. Further, the [DNSO proposal] formally introduce[s]
> [WIPO] for resolving trademark/domain name disputes...
>
> I wouldnt want to say anyone has jumped from a frying pan into a
> fire, but has this endless 'process' (IFWP et al) made the least bit
> of difference? Hasnt the 'problem' been solved for some time now?
> Where is all this 'trust' stuff coming from? Which war are we
> fighting?
What specifically has been solved in your mind?
>
>
> kerry
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
