Re: [ga] [fwd] [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP (from:

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

  I would still appear that you are correct Karl. The same old game is
still afoot after 5+ years.  Thank you again for reminding us all
again.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Were you surprised that the registries as a group oppose this?  It makes
> it very clear that these matters are being voted upon based on business
> concerns, with the technical stability of the internet being of absolutely
> no concern whatsoever.
>
> Here's something I sent last week:
>
> ....
>
> ... I find the term "registry service" to be an oxymoron.
>
> A registry should do one job and it should do it right.
>
> A registry, like a dentist who is drilling into your teeth, should not be
> distracted from the task at hand.
>
> Because TLD registries are a highly privileged group and allowed entre
> into a very small club of providers of what has become an essential
> internet utility service, those registries ought to be considered as
> having shed their right to offer distracting "services" as the price of
> admission to the club.
>
> If the doors to that club are ever opened wider then that condition could
> be, and perhaps ought to be, relaxed.  But as you properly indicate, the
> door to new TLD registries is presently locked shut by ICANN's immobility.
>
> But even if there were a wide open door to new TLDs (and thus to new
> registries), because customers build their brands and their network
> identities, on their chosen TLD, those customers need protection against
> so-called "services" that detract from the core job that those customers
> (and users) want (and have paid for) - a reliable name resolution service.
>
> So, as long as the drought of new TLDs continues - and the addition of
> merely tens of new TLDs is grossly insufficient to end that drought - I
> find the concept of registry "services" to be something that ought to be
> rejected in totality.
>
> I have heard no suggested "service" that is so tightly tied to "registry"
> function that it can not be done by registrars or by a third party, and
> this even includes things like WLS.
>
> So the bottom line for me is this:
>
> If registries want to offer "services" they had better ensure that we get
> a whole lot more registries (via new TLD's) first.  And in addition, those
> registries, new and old, had better be willing to make firm guarantees -
> guarantees that are backed by something quite tangible and guarantees that
> are readily enforced by those affected, both customers and users - that
> the nature and quality of the core offering is neither reduced, diluted,
> nor subject to ill reputation by virtue of such "services".
>
> Registries need not be fearful of this - In your book on the development
> of telephone networks in the US you point out how AT&T adopted the mantle
> of a regulated entity as a means to dominate its rivals.  And for the
> greater part of the 20th century that approach yielded a stupendous market
> share and revenue stream and yielded a telephone system that had many
> qualities that were the envy of the rest of the world.
>
>                 --karl--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801