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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Just call me a devils advocate;
> Isn't it business that will create stability.
> Certanly we have seen that governance cannot do it.
> e

 Well yes and no.  As we all have doubtless witnessed business
sometimes can and does create stability.  Enron and Worldcom/con
were two glaring examples of how business created great instability.
@home was yet another.

  However most of us on this forum that have been here for several
years have all to often witnessed and/or experienced how ICANN's
Bod and staff have also created, and are still creating instability as
well in their seemingly poor governance approaches to policy
making or determining.

  I personally don't want to see business alone determine what
stability is or will be.  Nor do I or any of our [ INEGroup ] members,
along with a number of this forums participants want to see ICANN
and the USG alone determining what flavor of stability we all will
be forced to live and potentially operate our ecommerce business
or activities by.  Hence it should be obvious that cooperation
with consultation between ALL interested parties/stakeholders/users
in concert, to create the stability that the majority of us want or desire.

  This is where ICANN and business alone seem to be at odds
and as such have been creating much more instability in our names
without our consent and often without our input.

Who is the devil and whom is the advocate?

So to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln again, such a divisive divide
cannot stand...

>
>
> >
> > 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