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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

L. Gallegos wrote:

> On 13 Oct 2003 at 19:55, 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
>
> While business may effect consumer satisfaction and pricing, it will most likely not
> create stability when it comes to the DNS.  Verisign has already shown, with its
> SiteFinder, that business will do what increases the bottom line whether it is good for
> stability or not.  Were it not for the consumer outcry, disruption would have been
> rampant and still might be if Verisign decides to re-introduce this so-called service.

 Verisign will likely be re-introducing Site Finder or something very similar.
As a service of some controversy, justified or not, as a registry for
.COM in perpetuity, and .NET until 2007 via ICANN very questionably
wise "Deal" it made to get .ORG for it's sometimes referred to
crony "PIR", one can hardly admonish Verisign for attempting to service
it's customers and in doing so try to make a profit at it.  That's the free
market system at it's best, as it should be.

>
>
> When it comes to a domain name registry - as opposed to a registrar - it is vital that
> standards are followed.  The many reasons have already been stated, not the least
> of which is that these *ehancements* and *services* are meant to be innovated at
> the edges and not at the core.

  Site Finder is a look-up service that was not a direct registry effected
service dealing with registration of domain names.  In fact the registry
function is a back end for the registrar.

  Indeed true standards should be followed whenever possible.  However
there is no defined and/or excepted measured consensus standard that
Site Finder using "Wild Cards" violated in any way.  Yet to a some
stakeholders/users it was considered "Disruptive".  I would say it
was done in such a way as to be an unpleasant surprise for a few
network operators that don't like chance or innovation.  However
to over 40m accesses to Site Finder, it would seem that a huge
number of the stakeholders/users were at least able and willing
to use Site Finder happily.

>
>
> Businesses will go for a monopoly when they can get away with it.  That is not
> always best for stability and is certainly not good for the consumer.

  Very much agreed.  ICANN as desiring monopoly of a non-profit
variety is a good example of this.  Verisign's .COM registry monopoly,
as well as all other ICANN's MDR2000 lottery determined and
paid in advance registries, are also all monopolies as well.

> Verisign conrols
> a monopoly in .com and .net, but the registry operation should remain pure, with the
> only *services* being smooth, secure, registration operations.  The NSI registrar can
> innovate and add value-added services just as other registrars have done.  Those
> are edge services and do not effect the core.  An example is the typical parking
> page that almost all registrars offer for registered domains that do not have specific
> nameservers and use the registrar's services instead.  The registry, however, should
> not ever implement this or similar services.  Even when the registry is also the
> registrar, the operations should be separate so that the core (registry) remains just
> that, especially when it comes to returning proper RCODE.
>
> Leah

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