Re: [ifwp] Re: NSI Agreement

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Milton and all,

Milton Mueller wrote:

> Pete:
>
> Pete Farmer wrote:
>
> > Yes, but... my understanding is that the contract is also intended to
> > put into action the *phase out* of NSI's monopoly over the registry
> > function for .com, .org, and .net.
>
> That really depends on NewCo, as I understand it. As Chris Ambler said in
> reaction to this message of yours, USG's renegotiation of NSI's contract
> demonstrates that it has now, and has always had, the ability to end or
> phase out NSI's monopoly. It has not used this power, deferring instead to
> the results of the White Paper process.
>
> > >Another problem with this approach is that the registry
> > >function is not a natural monopoly. There are now many
> > >alternative registries. It is only NSI's (or IANA's
> > >or NSF's)  control of the authoritative root zone file
> > >that prevents these alternative registries from being
> > >fully part of the Internet.
> >
> > The reason this hasn't happened is, in part, because lines of authority
> > for making this happen were muddy.  Today there is no established,
> > coherent process for creating and recognizing new gTLDs.  The White
> > Paper process is an attempt to clarify issues of responsibility and
> > authority and make way for the addition of new gTLDs.
>
> In fact, all the White Paper did was defer those issues to the NewCo, which
> is in turn deferring them to a Names Council. The Names Council will have
> to fight the same battles we have all been watching for the past three
> years.

  We believe that this is the correct assessment.  It has been our assessment
for sometime now as I have stated several times on this list.  It is precisely
for this reason that
a Membership Organization must exist initially in order to have a truly
Stakeholer
represented NewCo.  That Membership Organization, as we have outlined
in our Draft would insure that not party or Parties would be disenfranchised by
the
SO's or the Initial Board of the NewCo, in that the Initial Membership
Organization
would be inclusive of ALL of the stakeholders/usres and would require that
the Initial Board is an Elected body, that the SO Directors were Elected by the
Initial Membership Organization, and that any and all Committee members were
also
Elected by the Initial Membership Organization by Majority Vote.

>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com