Re: Tired of Waiting

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 07:18 PM 7/17/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

>Note that CORE is the conglomerate of ALL the registrars, or said in another
>word it is ALL the customers of the registry.

No, it's not. It only represents a very small segment of the registry
industry, and it's a non-existant segment as far as the root goes.

>So, within the spirit of competition (which is what EVERYONE seems to want
>to promote), you can't come to the table with a known un-negotiable outcome
>of "IOD *WILL* be the .web registry for CORE".

It doesn't matter. IOD is currently recognized by the internet community as
both the registry and registrar. CORE's claim on .WEB is identical to their
claim on .COM.

It's been pretty obvious from the beginning (and I've said this many
times), that the only way to solve the problem is to fix .COM, and
everything else will fall into place. Alas, nobody has the balls to stare
down SAIC.

>Any contract set out by CORE must be open for public bidding by any company.

But CORE does not have the authority to re-assign the registry contracts
for existing TLDs. The National Science Foundation does, and it hasn't
transfered that authority over to CORE.

>If two companies can accomplish all the terms set out in the public bid,
>and both can give the same guarantees, then in all common sense the company
>that can offer it at the better price should win.
>There's already one contract in place with Emergent.

Which only serves to make Jon Gilmore and his pals richer (check out his
previous relationships/investments with all the CORE contractors, ISPs,
etc). There is zero public accountability to show for it.

>Could someone give us the details of this contract (ie, when does it come
>under revision or go up for grabs again)? If so, I would argue forcefully
>for IOD to be a bidder for being a registry as soon as it comes around
>again.

Aside from the fact IOD is already a registry, there is no reason why
additional registries could not be added to CORE, even one that would
legitimize CORe's claim to .WEB.

>Why IOD didn't bid in the first place I can't understand... A series of
>requirements were drawn up for what the database/interface had to do and
>were handed around so that companies could bid. A few showed interest, but I
>think that only one (Emergent) in the end actually put together a serious
>proposal, which is why they were "lumped" with the job... (I may be mistaken
>in my appreciations, so corrections are welcome).

Follow Jon Gilmore's paper trail, and it'll become clear.

Besides, all of the serious participants in the now-defunct shared-tld
mailing list refused to sign the MoU after it became clear how the game was
being played by ISOC & the IAHC. You'll find most of them in the ORSC now.

If you want working shared-tld registry/registrar code I'll license it to
you (Chris probably will too), but not until some sanity has returned to
this topic, and the original IANA applications are recognized.


Best Regards,

Simon

--
###