Re: Tired of Waiting

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 04:53 PM 7/17/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

>Hi Simon, economically (as far as making a fast buck) for the CORE bunch
>it would have probably made sense to accept the IOD proposition. Fortunately
>there is oversight to make sure that the CORE bunch can't act selfishly to
>the detriment of the registrants, and this would have been blatantly so.
>Yeah, IOD offers CORE to run ".web" under a "IT'S MINE AND YOU CAN'T LEAVE
>ME" agreement.

You're missing something quite important here. The customers of IOD take
precedence over the customers of CORE, since they have significant prior
existance. Their existance is not only acknowledged by IANA, but IANA went
so far as to provide IOD (as well as anyone else who needed it, including
myself) a legal disclaimer to add to the registry registration process.
Consequently, CORE cannot take .WEB away from IOD without compensating IOD
for IOD's loss of revenue. If CORE did "grab" .WEB and get it in the root,
it would result not only in another lawsuit, but also in the appropriate
federal criminal charges. This is the main reason why the US Government had
to intervene, in order to protect Jon Postel (and this was quite clearly
outlined by Ira Magaziner when he spoke in London).

This is the real substance of the claim by IOD (Perry Metzger's fabricated
story only covers the judge's response to the request for a temporary
restraining order). Of course the judge threw out the request for the TRO,
because there was no immediate threat of the IAHC getting .WEB into the
root. Even today the IAHC/POC/PAB/CORE still can't do it.

>How does that guarantee CORE to get the best possible service
>available? Where is the fear of competition going to push service of IOD up
>and price down?

When is the fear of competition going to push service of Emergent up and
price down? There is no benchmark for service comparisons, and the cost
only seems to be going up.

What's your point? ;-)

>Oh, I nearly forgot... that's more or less the agreement with Emergent, so
>if Emergent gives lousy service, it would be dumped in favour of someone
>else with no loss of service to SLD holders.

Yeah, but why not have a seperate registry for each TLD? Then if one
registry screws up there are many others already up and running ready to
take over at a moments notice. That is desperately needed, and missing from
the gtld-mou plan. I'd call that competition, not the registry monopoly
that CORE has created.





Best Regards,

Simon

--
###